Tourism administration in the USA
Abstract The attitudes of US federal level administration to tourism in the USA over the past 20 years are discussed in relation to the background and signing into law of the 1981 National Tourism Policy Act, the first major piece of US tourism federal legislation since the 1961 International Travel Act. Focus is on the interplay between the Administration, Legislature and the private sector which led to the development of the Act. After a period of uncertainty the Act appeared to reaffirm federal support for tourism by raising it to Under Secretary level responsibility in the Department of Commerce and by establishing a new agency, the US Travel and Tourism Administration. However, since then the Administration has appeared to back-pedal by authorizing only a small budget and low staffing levels at the USTTA.
Managing Aboriginal Tourism in Hainan, China: Government Perspectives
Abstract Aboriginal tourism is a developing industry with both national and local implications. This paper provides an overview of the relationship between the state and aboriginal tourism by comparing five dichotomous measures. The types of governmental involvement in tourism are categorised from three perspectives: national, provincial and local. The investigation was undertaken in Hainan Island, China where aboriginal tourism among the Li people has become an important source of economic development. The findings suggest that although governments act as coordinators, planners and regulators in tourism development, tensions are raised when governments at different levels seek to ‘authenticate’ aboriginal culture and transform cultural experiences into a tourism product to be bought and sold. It is concluded that future aboriginal tourism planning should focus upon the issue of aboriginal control of tourism, cultural preservation and participation indecision-making processes.
Developers of the hepatitis B vaccine.
air at VA facilities, one of the many pieces of unfinished business beyond those major issues that we discussed in our Commentary. We agree that all facilities where current and past military personnel serve and receive treatment should be 100% smoke-free and note the recent Institute of Medicine report Combating Tobacco in Military and Veteran Populations. The report, which was commissioned by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2007, calls for the DOD to set a timeline to eliminate smoking on military installations. The report also recommends that the DOD stop selling tobacco products in military commissaries and exchanges, prohibit tobacco use anywhere on military installations, and treat tobacco use in the same way as other health-related behaviors, such as alcohol abuse and poor physical fitness. We join Matthews and the Institute of Medicine in urging the VA and the DOD to take more immediate steps to protect the health of the men and women who serve in the armed services, as well as the civilians (such as Dr Matthews) working to serve them.