Tourism Planning and Development in Maricá (RJ): Public Power Actions, Private Initiative, and Local Population Perspectives

Abstract:

The city of Maricá (RJ) has been going through a process of socioeconomic growth and tourism development has also been worked on. This research, which is part of a master's thesis, aims to understand which actions and projects have promoted tourism in Maricá and what the local population's assessment is of the actions implemented by the government and private initiative for tourism in the municipality. This is a study with a mixed methodology, combining documentary research, interviews, and exploratory survey research for data collection, and content analysis and simple descriptive statistics for data analysis. Several actions and projects aimed at structuring and strengthening the tourism sector in the municipality were found. Such actions were positively evaluated by the surveyed population, who also indicated that they have good perspectives about the development of tourism in Maricá, despite having little participation and knowledge of the projects, showing the need for local public administrators' strategies to attract it. Finally, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are listed.

Keywords:
Tourism policy; Tourism planning; Territorial development; Maricá (RJ)

Resumo:

O município de Maricá (RJ) vem passando por um processo de crescimento socioeconômico e o desenvolvimento turístico também vem sendo trabalhado. Esta pesquisa, recorte de uma dissertação de mestrado, objetiva entender quais foram as ações e projetos de fomento ao turismo em Maricá e qual avaliação a população local faz das ações implementadas pelo poder público e iniciativa privada para o turismo no município. Trata-se de um estudo com metodologia mista, combinando pesquisa documental, entrevistas e pesquisa survey exploratória para coleta de dados, e análise de conteúdo e estatística descritiva simples para análise dos dados. Foram encontradas diversas ações e projetos que visam à estruturação e ao fortalecimento do setor turístico no município. Tais ações foram avaliadas positivamente pela população pesquisada, que também indicou possuir boas perspectivas sobre o desenvolvimento do turismo em Maricá, apesar de ter pouca participação e conhecimento dos projetos, evidenciando a necessidade estratégica dos gestores públicos locais para atraí-la. Elencam-se, por fim, as limitações do estudo e sugestões para pesquisas futuras.

Palavras-chave:
Política de turismo; Planejamento turístico; Desenvolvimento territorial; Maricá (RJ)

Resumen:

El municipio de Maricá (Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) viene pasando por un proceso de crecimiento socioeconómico y el desarrollo turístico también se ha trabajado. Esta investigación, recorte de una disertación de maestría, tiene como objetivo comprender cuáles fueron las acciones y proyectos para promover el turismo en Maricá, y cuál es la evaluación que la población local hace de las acciones implementadas por el gobierno y la iniciativa privada para el turismo en el municipio. Es un estudio de metodología mixta, combinando investigación documental, entrevistas y encuesta exploratoria para la recolección de datos, y análisis de contenido y estadística descriptiva simples para el análisis de datos. Se encontraron varias acciones y proyectos que apuntan a la estructuración y fortalecimiento del sector turístico en el municipio. Tales acciones fueron evaluadas positivamente por la población encuestada, quienes también indicaron que tenían buenas perspectivas en el desarrollo del turismo en Maricá, a pesar de tener poca participación y conocimiento de los proyectos, evidenciando la necesidad de estrategias por parte de los gestores públicos locales para atraerlo. Finalmente, se enumeran las limitaciones del estudio y sugerencias para futuras investigaciones.

Palabras Clave:
Política de turismo; Planificación turística; Desarrollo territorial; Maricá (RJ - Brasil)

INTRODUCTION

Due to the various effects arising from tourism activity, it is necessary that planning and territorial planning of tourism are established from the dynamics and political arrangements of where it is intended to promote it (Hall, 2001). In this context, it is necessary the joint and coordinated action of the different agents that produce tourism and those interested in its development in the territory (Fratucci, 2014).

It is the role of the public authorities to elaborate legal mechanisms and guidelines so that tourism development benefits the receiving communities, avoiding the degradation of socioeconomic and environmental resources of the receiving nuclei (Cruz, 2006; García, Vásquez & Macías, 2015; Hall, 2001; Ramdas & Mohamed, 2014;). Planning tourism is a complex task that involves the identification of individuals and entities that will participate in the processes of formulation and implementation of public policies and tourism planning (Araújo, 2006; Brito, Breda & Costa, 2015; Ruhanen, 2013). However, tourism policies in general receive criticism for prioritizing the economic aspects of tourism over the social character of the phenomenon (commonly market-oriented), as well as the lack of articulation with other sectoral policies and generating not only results that fall short of the expected ones, but also accentuating social inequalities (Beni, 2006; Fratucci, 2014; Saarinen, 2016; Wakil, Sun & Chan, 2021).

The public power of the municipality of Maricá (RJ) has invested in improving the infrastructure of the municipality, including tourism, considering the finiteness of the oil royalties that the municipality receives. Despite this, the development of tourism in Maricá is still an incipient theme in the literature. Researchers have already addressed the development of initiatives to foster rural tourism (Costa & Oliveira, 2019) and the possibilities of community-based tourism in the municipality beyond the Maraey resort, a foreign capital tourism-residential project under construction in Restinga de Maricá (Conti & Lavandoski, 2019).

Thus, the objective of this work is to verify what actions have been taken by the local government and private initiative, in addition to identifying the assessment that residents and businessmen of Maricá make of the performance of the government, the tourism trade and civil society for the development of tourism in the municipality and what are their prospects for the future on the subject. This study is justified by the fact that Maricá is a municipality undergoing a socio-economic development process, benefiting from the oil royalties it collects, and that it has several projects to boost and develop tourism in its territory. The research was conducted from a mixed methodological approach, involving qualitative and quantitative biases explained in the methodology section.

PUBLIC POLICIES, GOVERNANCE AND TOURISM

Public policies are a theme widely researched in the literature by several sciences and areas of knowledge, such as education, health, social protection, among others. Broadly speaking, public policies are legal instruments that relate to the actions and intentions of governments in order to address certain issues of public interest (Chrispino, 2016; Souza, 2006) and usually expressed in plans, projects and programs to meet specific demands of society (Lopes, Amaral & Caldas, 2008).

Public policies are implemented in different areas, meeting the demands of specific sectors and are divided into administrative policies (democracy, social participation, decentralization) and sectoral policies (health, education, culture, tourism) (De Paula & Moesch, 2013). The actions formulated by State agents to meet the demands of tourists, residents, tourism trade and sector workers, are sectoral public policies of tourism (Carvalho, 2015; De Paula & Moesch, 2013; Hall, 2001), which must act within the territorial scope of its competence and be integrated into a broader State policy to promote tourism development (Velasco, 2011).

For a long time, the elaboration of public policies was an exclusive attribution of the State. However, with the crisis of the welfare state model and the rise of the neoliberal ideology at the end of the 1970s, changes in public administration occurred that generated a reduction of the role of the state in some areas and the inclusion of the participation of representatives of the business sector and civil society in the processes of public policymaking, decision-making, accountability, among others (Araújo, 2006; Dallabrida, 2020; Durán, 2013; Ruhanen, Scott, Ritchie & Tkaczynski, 2010). In general, we can indicate that this new modality of public management has stimulated and strengthened participatory democracy by increasing and encouraging the implementation of new forms of governance.

Governance can be assumed from distinct political-ideological positions, such as: neoliberal economic, of a deregulatory character of the state's role; postmodern civilist, of a diversifying character; and neomodern, in which governance assumes a regulatory, strategic, and collaborative role (Dallabrida, 2020; Geerlof, 2019). Governance thus involves a new trend of collective regulation, decision making, and policy making (Dallabrida, 2015; 2020).

Tourism is a complex socio-spatial phenomenon that, when well planned, provides the emergence of activities that boost the economy of the territories in which it occurs (Silva, 2006). Due to its human, social, spatial and economic nature, tourism generates impacts and conflicts of interest among its agents involved directly or indirectly with the phenomenon and who have an interest in its development (Trentin, 2016). These different groups demand actions from public authorities and can participate in the development of policies and decision-making about tourism issues in their territory in instances of governance - whether forums, councils, associations or other types (Araújo, 2006; Carvalho, 2015; Coutinho, Azevedo & Nóbrega, 2020).

Governance in tourism occurs when public and private agents and local communities are incorporated into tourism planning and planning debates to make collective decisions about tourism development (Bichler, 2021; Trentin, 2016; Trentin & Silva, 2020; Velasco, 2014). It is defined by the World Tourism Organization (WTO) as a process of managing tourism destinations from the combined, synergistic and coordinated efforts of governments, civil societies and the tourism trade (WTO, 2008 cited by Durán, 2013).

It should be noted that despite the participation of sectors of society, the involvement of public authorities in tourism can be perceived with more force at the initial moment of tourism development of a locality. This is because of the need to build basic infrastructure to ensure the satisfaction of visitors, legislative and/or regulatory instruments so that entrepreneurs can develop their ventures and invest in the territory (Dinis & Costa, 2014).

The development of tourism public policies that take into account particularities and potentialities of the territory, as well as the interests of the different social agents of tourism, can engender the development not only of the activities and communities linked to tourism, but of the whole territory, regardless of its scale.

TOURISM AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT

The territory, analyzed from the Geography, is a cut of the geographic space in which certain relations and activities take place. It has a symbolic value that evokes strong relations between the individual (or a group of individuals) with their living space, being formed by thoughts, ideas, ideologies and social, cultural and dominance and power relations (Fernandes, 2006; Haesbaert, 2007). Development, in turn, is the combination of mental and social changes in a population making it able to increase its wealth in a cumulative and sustainable way (Perroux, 1969 cited by Dallabrida, 2014). It is a complex, historical process, the result of diverse relationships (economic, political, cultural, etc.) and focused on the qualitative dimensions of socioeconomic processes, (Dallabrida, 2020; Mauro, Cintrão, Melhen & Oliveira, 2018; Saarinen, Rogerson & Hall, 2017).

Territorial development is a process of constant social change situated historically and territorially that happens integrated to intraterritorial, supraterritorial, and global dynamics that is sustained in the enhancement of resources and assets existing in the place, with the aim of boosting the territory's society and economy (Dallabrida, 2015). It also refers to the geographical scale of a process associated with the idea of permanent progress of the community and each individual residing in a given territory. Such development is endogenous (to value local particularisms and internal solidarities), interdependent on spatial and social networks, it is a collective process that refuses immediate interests of the economy and individual benefit (Dallabrida, 2014).

Dallabrida (2014; 2015; 2020) argues that the most appropriate model of territorial development is the endogenous one, the one that happens from within the territory and that integrates most local agents. This does not prevent external agents from entering the developing territory. The state should promote territorial development, counterbalancing the effects of market logic, providing absent structures for this development and assisting in the construction of its own development model, transforming it into a constant process of social learning and respecting the scales in which it is proposed (Brandão, 2012; Dallabrida, 2014). However, because of the predominance of the capitalist and economic logic in Brazilian public administration, it can be seen that this development is usually allied to economic activities capable of improving the income and quality of life of the inhabitants of a given territory.

Such processes should count on the active participation of the local community, because it knows the problems of the territory and can help in the formulation of promotion strategies, attraction of enterprises, investments, human capital, and dynamization of the local economy (Saussen & Baggio, 2021). The development dynamics needs to be carried out from instances that bring together public sector agents, private initiative, and civil society in a decentralized, horizontal, and collaborative way, and that share interests in favor of the territory (Giannone, 2002). This model is known as territorial governance and is based mainly on the role of the State and the protagonism of civil society, with discussions based on the definition of the vision of the future about the desired pattern of territorial development (Dallabrida, 2020).

Several economic activities contribute to the development of a territory, including tourism. As a socio-spatial phenomenon that encourages the generation of new enterprises, businesses and activities, tourism is a vector of diversification of the local economy from which entrepreneurs, residents and direct and indirect workers can benefit (Fratucci, 2014; Silva, 2006). To this end, the social agents of tourism appropriate fragments of the territory, converting them into merchandise (especially the entrepreneurs of the sector) to meet the desires of tourists - based on the sale and consumption of pleasure and experiences (Fratucci, 2014; Mullins, 1991).

Territorial development tied to tourism should be considered so that the territory prevails over tourism functions, privileging the entire tourism production chain and ensuring that the local community can have access to the benefits that tourism activity can provide (Silva, 2006; Fratucci, 2014). With the participation of the different local social agents, tourism policies are designed not to generate socioeconomic inequalities and to enhance other economic activities - even those that are not characteristic of tourism, enabling the socioeconomic development of the territory (Fratucci, 2014; Saarinen, 2016).

In a more specific context, the municipality of Maricá, located in the Metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro (and in the Costa do Sol tourist region), has been collecting high oil royalties, which, together with the future installation of the Petrochemical Complex of the State of Rio de Janeiro in Itaboraí (a neighboring municipality), has propitiated the municipality to show high economic and population growth rates (Brasil [Agência Nacional do Petróleo], 2022; Nogueira & Barbosa, 2018). The local government has used these resources to invest in improving the basic infrastructure of the municipality, as well as social and income redistribution policies, contributing to the prominence of the municipality on the state scene.

Tourism has also become a topic in the local government's speeches, in a way that one can observe several efforts of the City Hall in the figures of the Company for Economic Development of Maricá (CODEMAR) and the Secretariats of Tourism and Promotion and Special Projects (The Municipal Secretariat for Promotion and Special Projects (SPPE) of Maricá was created in 2021, outside the time frame of the research. Its insertion in the body of the text is only for the reader's knowledge). In addition to the actions of public agencies, the local private initiative has also acted for the development of tourism, mainly in the figure of the Federation of Convention & Visitors Bureaux of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FC&VB-RJ), the Maricá Convention & Visitors Bureau (C&VB) and the Maricá Gastronomy and Hospitality Route (popularly known as the Gastronomy Route). The joint action of these entities enabled the implementation of the Municipal Plan for Sustainable Tourism Development (PMDTS) Maricá 2030, one of the main projects directed towards the development of tourism in the municipality.

Besides these institutions, the Maraey tourist-residential project also stands out, from the Spanish group IDB Brasil, which intends to build the enterprise in the Environmental Protection Area (APA) of the Restinga de Maricá. Such project comes from a cooperation agreement from the late 1980s between the state government of Rio de Janeiro and Catalonia, and has already undergone several changes due to pressures from environmental groups and residents (Conti & Lavandoski, 2019; Fratucci, 2005).

In this context, this paper is interested in investigating what actions have been taken by the local public authorities and private initiative, and what is the evaluation that the resident population of Maricá has of the tourism development processes that the municipality is going through.

METHODOLOGY

This work is characterized as a qualitative and exploratory research, with the inclusion of a quantitative step, resulting in a mixed methods study. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods and techniques proved to be valid to understand the assessment that the population of Marica do the tourism development of the municipality from 2009 to 2020, providing more complete results regarding the phenomenon studied (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007; Paranhos, Figueiredo Filho, Rocha, Silva Júnior & Freitas, 2016).

To identify the tourism development projects of the municipality, the following data collection techniques were adopted: documentary research, to identify which were officially the actions of the actors involved (Sá-Silva, Almeida, & Guindani, 2009); and semi-structured and structured interviews with key actors of the process to obtain complementary information from the documentary research (Boni & Quaresma, 2005).

The data were treated using content analysis, which allows objective and systemic analysis of content from different media, looking for patterns and structures and categorizing elements of the communications to understand their meanings (Bardin, 1977). The adoption of this technique to analyze public policy issues has been recurrent in tourism research in Brazil (Coutinho & Azevedo, 2019; Hall & Valentin, 2005; Mata, Pimentel & Emmendoerfer, 2018; Pimentel, Pimentel & Vidal, 2017).

The titles of the documents analyzed are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Documents analyzed

The interviews were conducted with people identified as key players in Maricá's tourism development process in the period from 2009 to 2020 (comprising three mandates of the same political group). The choice of informants was based on the reading of documents and news about the activities that institutions such as CODEMAR, the Maricá Secretary of Tourism, Maricá C&VB, among others, had been performing to structure tourism in the municipality. The interviews were conducted with representatives of the institutions listed in Table 2, as well as the type of interview conducted and the informant code.

Table 2
Institutions interviewed, type of interview conducted, and informant code

Some interviews had to be structured due to the availability of the actors contacted. The methodological design had to be redone due to the authors' perception of the difficulties in the field, rethinking this stage according to the needs of some informants. In both procedures we tried to identify projects and actions developed and implemented by the public authorities and the private initiative in Maricá to stimulate the development of tourism in the municipality. Projects, programs, events, legislation, among others, were the items that we tried to map in the analysis of both stages.

Regarding the evaluation, perceptions and perspectives of the population of Maricá on the tourism development of the municipality, the survey technique was adopted. The results obtained with this research may reveal points for a better understanding of the territorial dynamics of the municipality, as well as alternatives for a management that enhances the positive effects of tourism at the destination for the local population (Bichler, 2021; Trentin & Silva, 2020). The survey was characterized as exploratory (to identify the opinions of the sample) and cross-sectional (Freitas, Oliveira, Saccol & Moscarola, 2000).

The data collection instrument was a structured questionnaire on the Google Forms platform. The main research filter was to be a resident, entrepreneur or worker in Maricá. We sought to verify whether the respondents and/or the companies of which they are employees or partners make up the Municipal Council of Tourism (COMTUR) of Maricá, as well as the level of interest and/or disinterest in integrating it, in order to verify the participation of the community in decision-making processes on tourism development (Hall, 2011; Ruhanen et al., 2010).

Based on the referential of tourism public policies, the participants' evaluation of the programs and projects for tourism development in Maricá prepared by the local public authorities and private initiative was questioned, in addition to the results perceived by them from a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = totally disagree, and 5 = totally agree. The participants answered whether they considered that the public authority, the private initiative and the organized civil society of Maricá had acted for the tourism development of the municipality, as well as if their actions had generated good results for society and for the local tourism sector.

It was also asked what the population's knowledge is about the tourism projects of the municipality, considering that public policies are presented in the form of projects and programs (Lopes, Amaral & Caldas, 2008) and, in tourism, even as events led by the government in partnership with the private sector. As in the questions cited in the previous paragraph, a 5-point Likert scale was used. The projects listed for the participants were those identified in the documentary research and interviews that had already been officially presented.

We also tried to verify the respondents' perspectives concerning the future of the municipality based on local tourism development. From the theoretical referential of the effects of tourism, statements were formulated in order to detect whether the residents project on the tourism development of Maricá (Chart 3) based on agreement or disagreement with the statements from a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = totally disagree, and 5 = totally agree.

Table 3
Results expected from tourism development and underlying references

It was also asked whether the respondent participated in some way in the processes of tourism development of the municipality, seeking to know how such participation occurred, in addition to seeking to identify reasons for non-participation in the tourism development of Maricá. The question is based on the premises of popular participation recommended by tourism governance (Ruhanen et al., 2010; Hall, 2011).

Finally, participants were asked whether they consider that Maricá has the potential to be a tourism destination and, based on the sample's knowledge as Maricá citizens, whether they believe that Maricá will be a consolidated destination in the state of Rio de Janeiro by 2030 - or whether they already consider it as such.

The questionnaire accepted responses from June to July 2021. There were no face-to-face surveys because the survey was conducted in a period of high risk of contagion from COVID-19. The dissemination was done through WhatsApp with workers and entrepreneurs of the local tourism industry (identified from Cadastur, the websites of Maricá C&VB, Maricá Oficial and Google Maps), in Facebook groups that gathered residents of Maricá and in direct messaging approaches through Facebook and Instagram. Those who agreed to participate in the survey were asked to forward it to their networks, and a sample was also obtained via snowballing (Vinuto, 2014).

The 208 valid responses obtained were tabulated in Microsoft Office Excel and treated from a descriptive statistical analysis, ascertaining simple frequencies and averages of the questions in which the Likert scale was used and exposing them in running text and simplified in graphs (Field, 2017), in addition to crossing these data with the documentary results and the interviews. Such a research effort brings opportunities for the local government and private initiative to understand the perceptions of the Maricaense population regarding tourism in the municipality, despite the limitations of the sample size and the techniques for obtaining the data, and that it was conducted only at a single point in time.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of desk research and interviews

The documents analyzed allowed to verify that the tourism development in Maricá was a gradual process due to the characteristics of the municipality. Agenda 21 (Maricá, 2011) presents proposals to develop sustainable tourism, ecotourism and rural tourism in the municipality, understanding the territorial dynamics of Maricá, which has extensive areas of preservation and environmental conservation. It is punctuated in the document the need to carry out the tourism inventory of the municipality to develop sustainable tourism and ecotourism, which was done from the technical cooperation agreement between CODEMAR and FC&VB-RJ, in 2017, according to informants 3 and 4.

Relative to rural tourism, the first action in this segment is prior to Agenda 21. Informant 2 mentioned that the event Espraiado de Portas Abertas, in the rural neighborhood of Espraiado, was created in 2008 by the residents, farmers and entrepreneurs of the neighborhood, and since 2013 it has been organized and promoted by the local Secretariat of Tourism, expressing the partnership of the public power with private initiative, and the policy to foster rural tourism (Costa & Oliveira, 2019).

From the agreement between CODEMAR and FC&VB-RJ, the PMDTS Maricá 2030 was elaborated, which comprises a series of actions to structure the municipality turistically, foreseeing the strengthening of local business institutions, professional qualification of human resources in the sector, events generating tourist flows etc. until 2030, aiming at the structuring of municipal tourist governance, in line with Trentin's (2016) and Velasco's (2014) notes. Such plan also contemplates actions to strengthen the promotion and tourism segments of Maricá in the long term, given its stage of development, and allows to infer an overcoming of political-partisan vision in the municipality, given that when the plan was formulated (2017-2018), the mandate of the management of the time would end in 2021 (re-elected in the municipal elections of 2020).

CODEMAR also structured the project Maricá Cidade do Samba e das Utopias, which, according to informant 5, aims to create a cultural environment in Barra de Maricá, transforming the houses of illustrious residents of the city (such as Maysa Monjardim, João Saldanha, Darcy Ribeiro and Beth Carvalho) into museum-houses, increasing the number of spaces suitable for cultural tourism in the city. CODEMAR's action in tourism also included the hiring of FC&VB-RJ, which in the view of informant 4, is a market institution that has expertise in tourism consulting and could assist in the tourism development of Maricá - a partnership that began in 2017, according to informants 3 and 4.

According to informants 1, 3 and 6 and the Maricá 2030 technical report, the FC&VB-RJ identified the need to strengthen local private initiative and created in 2018 the Maricá C&VB, aiming to bring together entrepreneurs and associations interested in tourism in the municipality. In addition, Maricá C&VB has been active in supporting events such as Espraiado de Portas Abertas, Gastronomic Festivals of Maricá (in partnership with the Gastronomic Route, according to informant 8) and in the digital marketing of the municipality.

Besides the structuring of the municipality, the training of managers and employees of the local tourism sector was also contemplated in the PMDTS. The Hospedar Maricá Program was executed in 2019, and consisted of seminars, courses focused on the lodging and food and beverage sectors of the municipality, and technical visits to other municipalities.

The Secretariat of Tourism, according to informant 7, also strived to guarantee the operation of the city's main events, such as the Illuminated Christmas, New Year's Eve, Maricá Carnival, and the Maricá Craft Fair (Feirarte). In addition, it was mentioned that the Secretary of Tourism, in partnership with Maricá C&VB and CODEMAR, promoted editions of Art & Bier - Maricá Craft Beer Festival, stimulating beer tourism in the city.

Due to the pandemic of COVID-19, in an action added to PMDTS Maricá 2030, the program Maricá Recebe Maricá Protege was implemented, which established guidelines and sanitary protocols to be followed by lodging establishments and bars and restaurants in the municipality.

Regarding the actions of the IDB Brasil group, informant 9 clarified that the only project in the municipality is Maraey, and that it is in constant dialogue with the government, corroborated by informant 4, from CODEMAR. The latter commented that the conversations are precisely so that the project is integrated to the touristic and territorial dynamics of the municipality, and not an isolated resort of Maricá and the touristic regions Costa do Sol and Metropolitana.

Based on the results of these stages, it can be inferred that the actions of the public authorities and private initiative to develop tourism in Maricá from 2009 to 2020 focused on structuring the sector in the municipality, with projects aimed at strengthening tourism and business institutions, and promoting events that generate tourist flows. In addition, it was perceived that the work, although carried out by an external agent (FC&VB-RJ), has taken into account the particularities of the territory and, in the long term, can ensure the development of the tourism sector in Maricá, the municipality as a whole and neighboring municipalities, allowing a local territorial development and the surrounding region of Maricá, in dialogue with the notes of Dallabrida (2014; 2020).

Results of the exploratory survey research

Regarding the relationship that the respondents maintained with the municipality, the majority reported that they lived in Maricá, but had an occupational situation that was not related to the municipality - they worked/studied in another municipality, were only students, retired or unemployed (39.9% of the sample), followed by Maricá residents and workers (34.62%), and entrepreneurs residing in the municipality (22.12%).

Regarding entrepreneurs, most respondents were from the food and beverage industry, along with other services (both representing 23.4%). Entrepreneurs from tourism sectors that made up the sample were active in travel agencies (10.64%), guiding (10.64%), lodging (8.51%), events (6.38%), and tourism transportation (2.13%). Of the businessmen in the municipality, only 12.77% informed that they were part of COMTUR Maricá. These data reflect the initial stage of tourism development in Maricá, in which the public authority is the main inducer and seeks to encourage an articulation of private initiative so that governance reaches consistent levels in the territory (Dinis & Costa, 2014). In the case of Maricá, it is understood that there is still work to be done, especially in convincing entrepreneurs and associations to participate in the processes of tourism development in the municipality.

Of the reasons that lead them not to participate in COMTUR, 60.87% said they did not know about its existence and 21.74% did not know how to join the council. However, of those who are not yet part of COMTUR Maricá, 60.87% of the business people who answered the survey said they were interested in joining the body.

Regarding the perception of the population about the actions for the tourist development of the municipality, the most perceived actions were those of the public authorities (average 3.97). The average perception of the population concerning the actions of the private initiative was 3.09, and that of Maricá's civil society was 2.93 (Figure 1). These data indicate that: the action of the public authority is more felt by the Maricaense population; according to the statements of two interviewed actors, the private initiative must be more active in the tourism development of Maricá; and that the population hardly perceives itself as active in this process.

Figure 1
Evaluation of the actions of the public power, private initiative, and civil society in Maricá for the development of tourism in the municipality

Such results reinforce the understandings of Dinis and Costa (2014), who indicate that the role of the public authorities in tourism development is more perceived in early stages of development. It is understood that because of the state of the art of tourism development in Maricá, civil society (in the form of neighborhood associations and/or representatives of resident communities) still does not have sufficient knowledge of tourism and its impacts and therefore does not participate much. However, it is recommended in the literature that communities should actively participate in these processes aiming at an equal, fair and sustainable tourism development (Bichler, 2021; Trentin & Silva, 2020).

Regarding the performance of the respondents, 73.56% informed that they had not acted in the tourism development of Maricá. Of these, the reasons listed for not participating were: lack of knowledge about how to act politically (33.65%) and about events and public audiences (32.21%), besides lack of interest in the theme (19.71%). This data resonates in the speech of an informant about possible failures of communication between the government and the population, so that strategies to call the population to participate in this process must be thought out. These strategies are extremely important for the tourism development of Maricá, because as indicated in previous studies, the participation of the population in planning and tourism development of the territory is very important (Bichler, 2021; Fratucci, 2014; Hall, 2001; Trentin & Silva, 2020).

Among those who reported that they acted, only 55 respondents (26.44%) reported that they acted in some way for the development of tourism in the municipality. Among the entire sample, 12.02% said they had participated in public hearings on the subject; 8.65% said they had taken demands on tourism to the local government; and 6.73% had proposed projects and legislative ideas on tourism. Other forms of action were informed by 11.06% of respondents, such as participation in events and spontaneous dissemination of the municipality on social networks.

Of the results so far perceived by the population of Maricá with tourism development, again the sample understands that the actions of the public authorities generated good results for the local tourism sector (average 3.85) and for the Maricaense population (average 3.98). This result, however, may have been influenced by the period when the survey was carried out, considering that several public works of urban improvement were carried out in this period, in addition to social policies to alleviate poverty and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the results perceived by the actions of the private sector and civil society, the averages were 3.35 and 3.02 of good results for the tourist trade (respectively), and 3.31 and 3.12 of good results for the local population (respectively) (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Perception of Maricá's tourism development results from 2009 to 2020

These data allow us to infer a strong presence of the government in the actions related to tourism in Maricá and in the results of the sector, while the results of the actions of the private sector are less perceived. This data again corroborates Dinis and Costa's (2014) points, that in the initial stage of tourism development, the actions of the public authorities are more perceived. The actions of Maricá's civil society were the least perceived by the population, a fact that reinforces the low popular participation in the discussions and debates about the municipality's tourism development already mentioned in this section.

Public policies are materialized in the form of projects and programs (Lopes, Amaral & Caldas, 2008). Thus, 12 tourism projects of the municipality found in documentary research and mentioned in the interviews were listed to measure the degree of knowledge of the population in relation to these projects (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Knowledge about Maricá's tourism projects

It was noticed that the events organized by the government were the most popular projects in the sample, with the highest averages for Natal Iluminado (4.48), Réveillon (3.94) and Carnaval (3.76). Other events, such as Gastronomic Festivals (3.65), Espraiado de Portas Abertas (3.43), and Art & Bier (3.29) also obtained significant averages. Projects that were not related to events obtained averages lower than 3, being the least known by the sample the PMDTS Maricá 2030 (2.63), Hospedar Maricá (2.37) and Maricá Recebe Maricá Protege (2.28). This result can also be supported by the lack of interest reported by most respondents in participating in discussions regarding the municipality's tourism development.

Regarding the expected effects in Maricá with the development of tourism, it was verified that the positive effects had a higher index of agreement in comparison with the negative effects (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Results expected with the tourism development of Maricá

The results indicate that the main expected effect is the benefit of trade and other economic sectors of the municipality (average 4.46), followed by the increase in jobs and income (4.26) and improvement in the quality of life (4.05). Such results are in line with the understanding of other studies (Hall 2001; Henz & Dos Anjos, 2014), that these effects are the most propagated in policies to encourage tourism in its initial stage and, because of this, are perhaps the ones that the studied population most believes will occur.

The effect of Maricá becoming a municipality capable of propitiating the economic development of neighboring municipalities also obtained a significant average (3.94), being a result expected by the sample. This result, however, may have been influenced by the government's initiatives to contain the effects of the pandemic and to alleviate poverty. However, it indicates that the research population understands that tourism development can absorb a labor force present in neighboring municipalities to work in local tourism, a thought reinforced by Informant 4, configuring an expected territorial development from tourism (Dallabrida, 2014; 2015; Silva, 2006).

Of the negative effects, the one with the highest average was the increase in the cost of living (3.71), so that the respondents project little negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts (3.04), conflicts between residents and tourists (2.94) and an uneven development with areas of less tourist appeal not being benefited (2.86). These results, when analyzed with the evaluation that the surveyed population makes of the performance of the public power and private initiative, may indicate that the discourses of economic diversification and improved quality of life are more accepted by the sample, to the detriment of the negative effects indicated by the literature (García, Vázquez & Macías, 2015; Hall, 2001; Oliveira & Rodrigues, 2019; Ramdas & Mohamed, 2014; Saarinen, 2016; Silva, 2006).

Regarding the belief of Maricá's potential to become a tourist destination, 90.87% of the respondents believe that the municipality possesses, while 8.17% understand that the municipality may have the potential to do so. Finally, when asked if they believe that Maricá will be a consolidated destination in the state of Rio de Janeiro by 2030 (time frame of PMDTS Maricá 2030), 55.17% believe so, while 33.17% of the population of Maricá that responded to the survey already consider the municipality as a tourist destination, and only 11.06% do not believe that Maricá will be a consolidated tourist destination by 2030.

It was observed that, in general, the respondents had a positive view about the tourism development processes that have been taking place in the municipality in recent years. It was verified, however, that most respondents did not participate (or participated little) in the discussions that involve the development of tourism in Maricá. This process occurs at a time when the city is gaining state and national prominence due to the urban structuring of the city, the income redistribution policies, and the economic development and growth enhanced by the oil royalties that the city collects. It is necessary to take advantage of this moment for tourism to be reflected beyond the generation of jobs and income, including the population in discussions about the subject, in a synergistic, coordinated and cooperative work so that the demands, goals and objectives of all involved and interested parties are achieved and the tourism development of Maricá guarantees positive results.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

To promote and develop tourism in municipalities undergoing economic growth and urban expansion is a complex challenge, given the desired and also the undesired effects that the activity can bring. The municipality of Maricá is going through these two processes simultaneously. Given the tourism projects that have been presented, this work sought to understand what actions were taken by the social tourism players in the municipality, as well as to verify the evaluations, perceptions, and projections that the population of Maricá has of the local tourism development.

The results show that the work done by both the government and the local tourism trade from 2009 to 2020 (with more strength as of 2017) aimed at structuring the tourism sector in the municipality, strengthening local tourism business associations, raising their awareness about governance, and promoting events that would insert Maricá in the Rio de Janeiro tourism circuit. Such efforts are part of the PMDTS Maricá 2030, which provides for a series of actions to structure the sector in the municipality and insert Maricá in the Rio de Janeiro and national tourism circuit.

It was also found that the population of Maricá evaluates positively the work done in the municipality, perceiving the actions of the government in the development of tourism, and inferring that such actions yielded good results for the population and for the local tourist trade. The perception of the population in relation to the actions of the private sector and its results is also positive, but lower than that of the public sector, which shows that the local government has acted as an inducer and promoter of tourism in Maricá. Moreover, the urbanization works and social policies of income redistribution and poverty alleviation headed by the government may have influenced the sample's evaluation, even though the questions were related to the government's action in tourism.

Despite the good perceptions regarding the public power and private initiative, the population of Maricá participated very little in the discussions and elaboration processes of public policies and tourism development in the municipality. This data reinforces the need to develop strategies to attract the local population to occupy the spaces of discussion and public hearings on the theme, considering that they will be one of the main affected by the consolidation of tourism in Maricá.

This work addressed the tourism development of Maricá from 2009 to 2020 based on the policies, projects and actions developed by the local government and private initiative, as well as the perceptions and projections that the local population makes of this process. These efforts, however, are limited.

The field research was carried out during the pandemic peak and had to be done remotely, so that it was not possible to capture in this work the totality of the views of the territory regarding tourism. In addition, approaching people to participate in the survey research remotely also proved to be a challenge, as many messages either did not reach the recipients, or went to their unfiltered or spam mailboxes. The limited sample and the fact that it is cross-sectional do not make the data generalizable, being a snapshot of the time when the research was conducted, and replication/updating of this research is suggested to validate or not such results.

In addition, other limitations of the scope of the work were also perceived, such as issues of tourism in Maricá that were not mapped in this work and that deserve further study. The municipal associativism in relation to tourism, for example, is a point that needs to be deepened for the understanding of the state of the art of local tourism governance, as well as the relationships that the members of COMTUR Maricá establish among themselves and what their visions are. Given the characteristics of the political moment of Maricá, it is considered interesting to also research initiatives to promote community-based tourism, especially in the rural areas, which have been worked on a lot by the public authorities.

This work approached a tourism development process that is still in progress. Future research should also seek to evaluate the impacts of the discourses of the local government on the resident population in view of the good prospects of the results of tourism development, as well as the results that the municipality will obtain with the consolidation of tourism as a strong local economic sector. Such research efforts, supported by critical and consistent analysis, may serve as tools for public and private managers of the municipality to boost sustainable tourism in Maricá.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the financial support for this research.

To the representatives of institutions and associations who agreed to give interviews to the authors to contribute to this research.

To the resident, working and entrepreneurial population of Maricá who participated in the exploratory survey research carried out in this study.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Araújo, L. (2006). Participação sociopolítica no planejamento turístico. Turismo: Visão e Ação, 8(1), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.14210/rtva.v8n1.p153-164
• Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de Conteúdo Lisboa: Edições 70.
• Beni, M. C. (2006). Política e planejamento estratégico no desenvolvimento sustentável do Turismo. Revista Turismo em Análise, 17(1), 55-22. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1984-4867.v17i1p5-22
• Bichler, B. (2021). Designing tourism governance: The role of local residents. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100389
• Boni, V. & Quaresma, S. (2005). Aprendendo a entrevistar: como fazer entrevistas em Ciências Sociais. Em Tese - Revista Eletrônica dos Pós-Graduandos em Sociologia da UFSC, 2(1), 68-80. Recuperado de: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/emtese/article/view/18027/16976
• Brandão, C. A. (2012). Território e desenvolvimento: as múltiplas escalas entre o global e o local Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
• Brasil, Agência Nacional do Petróleo. (2022). Tabelas contendo o valor mensal dos royalties dos beneficiários (Janeiro a Agosto 2022) Recuperado de: https://www.gov.br/anp/pt-br/assuntos/royalties-e-outras-participacoes/arq-royalties/tabelas-contendo-o-valor-mensal-dos-royalties-dos-beneficiarios/2022/royalties-tabelas-2022.xlsx
• Brasil, Presidência da República. (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 Recuperado de: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
• Brito, M., Breda, Z. & Costa, C. M. (2015). Planejamento do turismo e stakeholders: abordagens, concepções, metodologias. Revista Iberoamericana de Turismo, 5(2), 140-154. Recuperado de: https://www.seer.ufal.br/index.php/ritur/article/view/2062/1605
• Chrispino, A. (2016). Introdução ao estudo das políticas públicas Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
• Carvalho, F. (2015). Agenda Governamental e Trajetória Institucional do Turismo no Brasil. Anais Brasileiros de Estudos Turísticos, 5(1), 59-70. Recuperado de: https://periodicos.ufjf.br/index.php/abet/article/view/3054/1062
• Conti, B., & Lavandoski, J. (2019). Caminhos para o desenvolvimento turístico em Maricá, RJ. Caderno Virtual de Turismo, 19(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.18472/cvt.19n1.2019.1529
• Costa, T., & Oliveira, S. (2019). Análise temporal do desenvolvimento organizacional do evento Espraiado de Portas Abertas nos anos de 2008 e 2016 no município de Maricá, RJ. In: Gomes, G. (Org.). Turismo, sustentabilidade e hospitalidade 2 Ponta Grossa (PR): Athena Editora. http://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.7301902093
• Coutinho, A., & Azevedo, F. (2019). Desarrollo del Turismo en Rio Grande do Norte e Interfaces con la Gobernanza del Estado: Un estudio en Rio Grande do Norte / Brasil. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 17(4), 655-669. https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2019.17.047
• Coutinho, A., Azevedo, F. & Nóbrega, W. (2020). Articulação de rede social no processo de desenvolvimento turístico: o caso no Rio Grande do Norte/Brasil. Turismo: Visão e Ação , 22(1), 115-140. https://doi.org/10.14210/rtva.v22n1.p115-140
• Cruz, R. (2006). Planejamento governamental do turismo: convergências e contradições na produção do espaço. In: Lemos, A., Arroyo, M. & Silveira, M. América Latina: cidade, campo e turismo São Paulo: CLACSO.
• Dallabrida, V. (2014). Do debate teórico sobre desenvolvimento territorial aos desafios de sua prática: a indicação geográfica como alternativa. In: Dallabrida, V. (Org.). Desenvolvimento territorial: políticas públicas brasileiras, experiências internacionais e a indicação geográfica como referência São Paulo: LiberArs.
• Dallabrida, V. (2015). Governança territorial: do debate teórico à avaliação da sua prática. Análise Social, (215), 304-328. Recuperado de: http://analisesocial.ics.ul.pt/documentos/AS_215_a04.pdf
• Dallabrida, V. (2020). Território e governança territorial, patrimônio e desenvolvimento territorial: estrutura, processo, forma e função na dinâmica territorial do desenvolvimento. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento Regional, 16(2), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.54399/rbgdr.v16i2.5395
• De Paula, A. & Moesch, M. (2013). Pela transversalidade da questão social nas políticas públicas setoriais: um ensaio sobre as políticas públicas de turismo. Caderno Virtual de Turismo , 13(2), 183-198. Recuperado de: http://www.ivt.coppe.ufrj.br/caderno/index.php/caderno/article/view/726/353
• Durán, C. (2013). Governance for the Tourism Sector and its Measurement. UNTWO Statistics and TSA Issue Paper Series STSA /IP2013/01 (Online) Recuperado de: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284415632
• Fernandes, B. (2006). Os campos da pesquisa em educação do campo: espaço e território como categorias essenciais. In: Educação do campo e pesquisa: questões para reflexão Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário. Recuperado de: http://portal.mec.gov.br/secad/arquivos/pdf/educacaodocampo/artigo_bernardo.pdf
• Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using SPSS Londres (Reino Unido): Sage publications.
• Fratucci, A. C. (2005). A formação e o ordenamento territorial do turismo no Estado do Rio de Janeiro. In: Bartholo, R., Delamero, M., & Bandin, L. Turismo e sustentabilidade no Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro: Garamond.
• Fratucci, A. C. (2014). Turismo e território: relações e complexidades. Caderno Virtual de Turismo , 14(supl.1), 87-96. Recuperado de: http://www.ivt.coppe.ufrj.br/caderno/index.php/caderno/article/view/1018/404
• Fratucci, A. C., Schwantes, G. & Maia, Y. (2014). Estrutura da gestão pública do turismo nos municípios do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Cultur - Revista de Cultura e Turismo, 8(1), 140-159. Recuperado de: https://periodicos.uesc.br/index.php/cultur/article/view/340/347
• Freitas, H., Oliveira, M., Saccol, A. & Moscarola, J. (2000). O método de pesquisa survey. Revista de Administração, 35(3), 105-112.
• García, F., Vázquez, A., & Macías, R. (2015). Resident’s attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
• Geerlof, J. (2019). A New Social Contract: Substituting the Neoliberal Public Policy Paradigm with a Participatory Public Policy Paradigm. World Futures, 75(4), 222-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2018.1554549
• Giannone, M. (2002). Tourist Local Systems and Territorial Development. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 3(1-2), 125-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J162v03n01_08
• Haesbaert, R. (2007). Concepções de território para entender a desterritorialização. In: Santos, M., Becker, B. (Orgs.). Território, Territórios: Ensaios Sobre o Ordenamento Territorial (3ª ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Lamparina Editora.
• Hall, C. M. (2001). Planejamento turístico: políticas, processos e relacionamentos São Paulo: Contexto.
• Hall, C. M. (2011). A Typology of Governance and its Implications for Tourism Policy Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.570346
• Hall, C. M. & Valentin, A. (2005). Content analysis. In: Ritchie, B., Burns, P. & Palmer, C. (Eds.). Tourism Research Methods CAB International. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851999968.0191
• Henz, A. P. & Dos Anjos, F. (2014). A construção de políticas de turismo no Brasil: abordagens sobre Estado, governo, políticas públicas e descentralização. In: Anais do 11º Seminário Anual da ANPTUR Fortaleza, CE.
• Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
• Lopes, B., Amaral, J. & Caldas, R. (2008). Políticas Públicas: conceitos e práticas Belo Horizonte: SEBRAE/MG.
• Mata, G., Pimentel, T. & Emmendoerfer, M. (2018). Teoria do Campo Social e Políticas Públicas: O Caso do Conselho Gestor de Turismo de Juiz de Fora, MG, Brasil. Rosa dos Ventos - Turismo e Hospitalidade, 10(2), 332-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.18226/21789061.v10i2p332
• Maricá, Prefeitura Municipal. (2011). Agenda 21 Maricá Recuperado de: https://agendario.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Maric%C3%A1_baixa.pdf
• Mauro, R., Cintrão, J., Melhen, J. & Oliveira, E. (2018). Dimensões do desenvolvimento territorial e políticas públicas: perspectivas e desafios a partir da Constituição Federal de 1988. Revista de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade, 7(3), 489-506. https://doi.org/10.5585/geas.v7i3.1496
• Mullins, P. (1991). Tourism urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 15(3), 326-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1991.tb00642.x
• Nogueira, A. & Barbosa, G. (2018). Planejamento urbano e regional na cidade de Maricá (RJ): conquistas e novos desafios. In: Anais do 8º Congresso luso-brasileiro para o planeamento urbano, regional, integrado e sustentável (PLURIS 2018), Cidades e Territórios - Desenvolvimento, atratividade e novos desafios Coimbra, Portugal. 2018.
• Paranhos, R., Figueiredo Filho, D., Rocha, E., Silva Júnior, J. A. & Freitas, D. (2016). Uma introdução aos métodos mistos. Sociologias, 18(42), 384-411. https://doi.org/10.1590/15174522-018004221
• Pimentel, T., Pimentel, M. & Vidal, J. (2017). Las políticas públicas de turismo desde una perspectiva normativa comparada: los casos de Brasil y España. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural , 15(2), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2017.15.018
• Ramdas, M., & Mohamed, B. (2014). Impacts of Tourism on Environmental Attributes, Environmental Literacy and Willingness to Pay: A Conceptual and Theoretical Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144, 378-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.307
• Ruhanen, L. (2013). Local government: facilitator or inhibitor of sustainable tourism development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 21(1), 80-98, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.680463
• Ruhanen, L., Scott, N., Ritchie, B. & Tkaczynski, A. (2010). Governance: a review and synthesis of the literature. Tourism Review, 65(4), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371011093836
• Sá-Silva, J., Almeida, C. & Guindani, J. (2009). Pesquisa documental: pistas teóricas e metodológicas. Revista Brasileira de História & Ciências Sociais, 1(1).
• Saarinen, J. (2016). Enclavic tourism spaces: territorialization and bordering in tourism destination development and planning. Tourism Geographies, 19(3), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1258433
• Saarinen, J., Rogerson, C., & Hall, C. M. (2017). Geographies of tourism development and planning. Tourism Geographies , 19(3), 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1307442
• Sausen, J. & Baggio, D. (2021). Contribuições da gestão humanizada para o desenvolvimento territorial. Revista de Estudos Interdisciplinares, 3(3), 90-105. Recuperado de: https://ceeinter.com.br/ojs3/index.php/revistadeestudosinterdisciplinar/article/view/199/193
• Silva, J. A. (2006). A dimensão territorial no planejamento do desenvolvimento turístico no BrasiI: modelo do pólo de crescimento versus modelo territorialista e endógeno. Revista Turismo em Análise , 17(3), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1984-4867.v17i3p5-23
• Souza, C. (2006). Políticas públicas: uma revisão da literatura. Sociologias , 8(16), 20-45. Recuperado de: https://www.scielo.br/j/soc/a/6YsWyBWZSdFgfSqDVQhc4jm/?format=pdf⟨=pt
• Trentin, F. (2016). Governança turística em destinos brasileiros: comparação entre Armação dos Búzios/RJ, Paraty/RJ e Bonito/MS. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural , 14(3), 645-658. https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2016.14.042
• Trentin, F. & Silva, E. M. (2020). O olhar dos residentes de Paraty sobre os impactos do turismo. Ateliê do Turismo, 4(1), 51-74. Recuperado de: https://periodicos.ufms.br/index.php/adturismo/article/view/11349/7971
• Velasco, M. (2011). La política turística. Una arena de acción autónoma. Cuadernos de Turismo, 27, 953-959. Recuperado de: https://revistas.um.es/turismo/article/view/140301/126541
• Velasco, M. (2014). Gobernanza turística: ¿Políticas públicas innovadoras o retórica banal? Caderno Virtual de Turismo , 14(supl. 1), 9-22. Recuperado de: http://www.ivt.coppe.ufrj.br/caderno/index.php/caderno/article/view/1023/408
• Vinuto, J. (2014). A amostragem em bola de neve na pesquisa qualitativa: um debate em aberto. Tematicas, 22(44), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.20396/tematicas.v22i44.10977
• Wakil, M., Sun, Y. & Chan, E. Co-flourishing: Intertwining community resilience and tourism development in destination communities. 2021 Tourism Management Perspectives , 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100803

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  15 Sept 2023
• Date of issue
  Sep-Dec 2023

History

• Received
  11 Jan 2023
• Accepted
  20 Apr 2023