Benefit to stakeholders
The tourism industry is one of the leading sources of income to the Thai Land government. The country provides comfort and adventure to the tourist with many sources of adventure. Cities such as Chiang Mai and Bangkok are very appealing destinations. In spite of their appeals to customers, there has been increasing concern as to the impact of tourism and tourists activities on the stakeholders who includes the society and the environment (Del, 2014). The tourists expect to derive excitement and joy from visiting the country, failure to which they would choose a different tourist destination. The government expects to derive growth from the fees that is charged on such tourists as well as their spending while in the country. Equally, the citizens expect to enjoy good services as a result of the government using the revenues collected from the tourism sector in the provision of services (Compton, 2010). They also intend to realize increased sales when such tourists purchase their goods and services. Equally, the firms are expected to realize improved performance as a result of economic growth and development, stimulated from revenues generated in the tourist sector. At the same time, there is an expectation in the society that it will gain from tourism, as the tourists needs to reward them for using its natural and acquired heritage (Cohen, 2013). The environment also deserves to be protected if tourism will be sustainable in the long run. Thais have to cope with the social cultural changes in the society emanating from tourism where elements such as sex tourism have been a huge cost to the morals of the society (Compt
Advantages and disadvantages of public and private sector partnership in tourism planning
The public private sector partnership refers to a relationship that exists when the government and the private sector comes together to carry out specific project. This is mainly done on the bases of agreed sharing of risks and tasks. Each party in such a scenario retains its identity as well as responsibilities (Bredeson, 2012). This has been ongoing in many countries in cases such as infrastructure where the government I initiates such projects but they are eventually executed by the private sector. The same could be replicated in the tourism sector (Feldman, & Miller, 2014).
It allows transfer of risk to the party that is best suited to handle such risk. For instance, the government is better suited to identify tourists who should be allowed to the country or not and those who poses risk to national security, using its intelligence resources, something that the private sector may not posses (Feldman, & Miller, 2014). In Thailand, the government establishes the policies while accommodation and services to tourists is mainly carried out in private sector facilities e.g. hotels. The government provides public sites to such tourists including beaches, although hotels near such beaches are privately owned (Harrison, 2011).
The government has a massive financial capability to develop long lasting structures that are capital intensive and hence, it may provide capital for development and only engage the private sector in provision of labor, where the private sector bears high level of efficiency in utilization of such resources as compared to the public sector (Hardy, Kingston, & Sanders, 2010).
The private sector enjoys high level of skills and skill improvement of skills among employees as compared to the public sector whose main focus is the bare minimum. By including the private sector, various private entities are brought on board. In their efforts to boost competitiveness, they end up cutting on the cost of operations while at the same time delivering care in their organizations in a better manner as compared to other competing firms. This increases efficiency in allocation of resources in the country (Bishop, & Robins