MTRME105 Sustainable Tourism Policies Task brief & rubrics

MTRME105 Sustainable Tourism Policies Task brief & rubrics

Task: Case study

• Individual task
• Read the journal article Díaz-Parra, Ibán, and Jaime Jover. “Overtourism, place alienation and the right to the city: insights from the historic centre of Seville, Spain.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism29.2-3 (2021): 158-175.
• From the article focus on the definitions and the analysis of the following concepts: alienationand place displacement, appropriation, gentrification, over-tourism,and authenticity.
• Choose a destination and apply these concepts to analyze it. You may use these guiding questions in your analysis:
• Which are the most relevant stakeholders in the case?
• Does the destination show signs of alienationand place displacement, appropriation, gentrification, overtourism?
• Is the destination authentic? Explain.
• In your case study, conclude whether tourism in the destination you have chosen is sustainable. In your evaluation, use the broader definitions of sustainability and sustainable tourism discussed in class (see slides).
• Predict the evolution of these concepts in relation to social, environmental, and economic issues discussed in class such as poverty, waster access, food access or access to education and health.
• Propose and defend an approach that you believe may help the destination develop a more sustainable form of tourism. Alternatives are the top-bottom approach, community-based approach, regulatory approach, marketing and market-based approach. You may choose a combination of approaches.
• Contextual information:
• Regarding the article of Díaz-Ibara & Jover (2020) focus on the theoretical framework and conclusions, it is not necessary to read the methodological part.
• Base your discussion of the concepts on the article of Díaz-Ibara & Jover (2020) and the following resources which will be discussed during the semester. These resources are all available in your EBSCO Library (Moodle). You may also do additional research if it is necessary.
• Jillian M. Rickly and Elizabeth S. Vidon (2018) Authenticity & Tourism: Materialities, Perceptions, Experiences. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited (Tourism Social Science Series). Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1717716&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 24 September 2021). Read pages 1-12.
• Rachel Dodds and Richard Butler (2019) Overtourism: Issues, Realities and Solutions. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg (De Gruyter Studies in Tourism). Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2381171&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 24 September 2021).10-18; 46-57; 78-87
• Case studies of Venice, Lucern and Prague available at Overtourism: Issues, Realities and Solutions. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg (De Gruyter Studies in Tourism). Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2381171&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 24 September 2021).
• The city that you use as a destination for your case study area must be approved by the professor by week 3 (session 2) at the latest.
• It must be a city that is a relevant destination within a wider region.
• Expected table of contents

Introduction to the case

Discussion of concepts (authenticity, gentrification, place alienation, overtourism and appropriation)

Description of study area

Analysis of the destination using the concepts and definitions

Forecasts

Proposal

Conclusion

• Case study in pdf format

Formalities:

• Wordcount: 3,000
• Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are excluded of the total wordcount.
• Font: Arial 12,5 pts.
• Text alignment: Justified.
• The in-text References and the Bibliography must be in Harvard’s citation style.

Submission: Week 10 – Via Moodle (Turnitin). Friday, December the 5th at 23:59 CEST

Weight: This task is a 100% of your total grade for this subject.

It assesses the following learning outcomes:

• Outcome 1: Predict the impacts of environmental and social scenarios on different areas of tourism and tourism businesses
• Outcome 2: Investigate about global climate change poverty and other aspects of sustainability and bring relevant findings to the course
• Outcome3: Defend different approaches to challenges in sustainability in tourism
• Outcome 4: Hypothesize about the impacts of issues like climate change or species extinction on tourism
• Outcome 5: How general sustainability relates to tourism
• Outcome 6: Construct approaches, solutions to build sustainability into society and businesses in tourism
• Outcome 7: Prioritize among several approaches and solutions in sustainability

Rubrics

	Exceptional 90-100	Good 80-89	Fair 70-79	Fail <60
Prediction of impacts (15%)	Student makes a sound prediction that is tightly and logically linked to the current situation and based on knowledge that is at the forefront of the discipline.	Student makes a good prediction that is well linked to the current situation and based on sound knowledge.	Student makes a fair prediction that is somehow linked to the current situation and based on some knowledge of the discipline.	Student makes an inadequate prediction that is illogical or unlinked to the current situation. It shows very little or no knowledge of the discipline.
Construction of approaches (15%)	Students shows creativity in the construction of approaches through the consideration of multiple angles and using new and worthwhile ideas (both incremental and radical concepts).	Students shows some creativity in the construction of approaches through the consideration of at least one additional angle and using some new ideas (both incremental and radical concepts).	Students shows very little creativity in the construction of approaches. They are very similar to approaches discussed in class. Does not reflect deep consideration.	Students shows no creativity in the construction of approaches or there are no approached developed. The approaches presented are mere mechanical repetitions of the ones discussed in class.
Hypothesizing (15%)	Student shows exceptional ability to develop hypotheses identifying accurate premises that are well linked and based on empirical considerations.	Student shows good ability to develop hypotheses identifying premises that are linked to each other and based on some empirical considerations.	Student shows marginal ability to develop hypotheses based on some premises that are loosely linked to each other and based on empirical considerations to a little extent.	Student fails to develop hypotheses or attempts to do so but the hypotheses are based on premises that are very loosely linked or not linked at all. There are empirical considerations.
Critical Thinking (15%)	Student critically evaluates the destination in excellent ways, drawing outstanding conclusions from relevant authors.	Student critically assesses in good ways, drawing conclusions from relevant authors and references.	Student provides some insights but stays on the surface of the topic. References may not be relevant.	Student makes little or no critical thinking insights, does not quote appropriate authors, and does not provide valid sources.
Research and Communication (10%)	Students demonstrates an exceptional ability to investigate about the topics. Student communicates their ideas extremely clearly and concisely, respecting word count, grammar and spellcheck	Students demonstrates good ability to investigate about the topics. Student communicates their ideas clearly and concisely, respecting word count, grammar and spellcheck	Students demonstrates marginally inadequate ability to investigate about the topics. Student communicates their ideas with some clarity and concision. It may be slightly over or under the wordcount limit. Some misspelling errors may be evident.	Students fails to demonstrate an ability to investigate about the topics. Student communicates their ideas in a somewhat unclear and unconcise way. Does not reach or does exceed wordcount excessively and misspelling errors are evident.
Defend different approaches to challenges in sustainability in tourism (15%)	The student defends her approach based on well- grounded empirical data and literature. The arguments are very clear and coherent and based on highly relevant empirical examples.	The student defends her approach based on empirical data and literature. The arguments are clear and coherent and based on examples.	The student defends his approach, but the defence is weak, based on little empirical data and literature. The arguments are somehow unclear or lack some coherence. There are very few empirical examples.	The student fails to defend her approach, or the defence is extremely weak, based on no empirical data nor literature. The arguments are lacking or difficult to read and understand.
Prioritize among several approaches and solutions in sustainability (15%)	The student compares at least 2 different approaches. The contrast and comparison are based on highly relevant grounds. The student makes a clear prioritization based on excellent criteria found at the forefront of the discipline and relevant literature.	The student compares at least 2 different approaches. The contrast and comparison are based on grounds. The student makes prioritization based on sound criteria.	The student compares approaches, but the comparison is not based on clear grounds. The student makes prioritization based on somewhat unclear or irrelevant criteria.	The student fails to compare approaches, or the comparison is extremely weak, and based on unclear grounds. The student does not prioritize, or the prioritization is based on completely irrelevant or unclear criteria.

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!