This presentation outlines tourism assessment programs (TAP) in Minnesota. In partnership with the communities, there was 3-part data collection: inventories of community assets, industry and academic expert visit assessment, and facilitated community SWOT discussion of key developmental opportunities.

1. RB & LT
Both Introduce
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 1

2. RB
Cut if 20 minutes only
(Total 3 minutes) Pair, 1 minute for each person to talk.
Summary statement – understanding the most meaningful impacts of the Tourism
Assessment Program was what we were trying to learn as well in conducting this
evaluation. To explain what some of these impacts were, we have the following topics for
today
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 2

3. RB
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 3

4. RB
Tourism industry and funder focus : on return on investment based outcomes‐ ( a silver bullet
solution)
Importance‐Performance Model (IPA) is commonly used in many industries to assess and modify management policies.
When used, the model organizes data collected via customer satisfaction surveys into two scored categories: 1) how
important a particular service attribute is to the consumer, and then 2) how well the service attribute performed
according to the consumers expectation. Martilla and James (1977)
In considering the sustainable development of tourism destinations, Ritchie and Crouch (2003) go onto suggest that a
destination’s marketing performance is based on more than two dimensions. “Whereas comparative advantages involve
[comprehension of] the resources available to a destination, competitive advantages relate to a destination’s ability to
use these resources effectively over the long term.”
Developers and Communities focus :on bridging Different perceptions of what constitutes “community assets” to
overcome development barriers
Emery, Fey & Flora (2006) suggest that supporting community development with a lens like the Community Capitals
Framework, can help development practitioners not only identify their assets, but also start to map out relationships
that exist between each asset category that can then be monitored for change or opportunities for development.
Robinson & Meikle‐Yaw (2007) found that in their developmental work with communities in the Delta region of
Mississippi “context and the action do "affect" one another. For example, by purposely mixing African American and
White residents in workgroups , they created a discussion environment that was the exact opposite from the existing
social and political context which has been competition and conflict between two separate groups.
Chazdon and Paine (2014) also point out that evaluation can be used to convince stakeholders and authorizers what
outcomes are truly important (example social capital).
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 4

5. RB
Cousins and Whitmore (1998)
Transformative – wordel
To support political empowerment, emancipation, and social justice. Ultimate decision
making and control is by beneficiaries
Practical ‐ puzzle
To support program refinement & problem solving. Decision making is balanced between
the researcher and beneficiaries
For this evaluation of Minnesota’s Tourism Assessment Program we used a practical
approach to participatory program evaluation. In continuing to refine Extension’s programs
to meet the needs of diverse communities however, we acknowledge that opportunities
exist to reframe program evaluation in the transformative context as well.
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 5

6. LT
The Tourism Assessment program is a Participatory Action Program
Liz – Pass around Community Tourism Development Manual.
Three‐part data collection in partnership with communities:
*Inventories of community assets that can be mobilized for tourism development
*Industry and academic expert visit assessments of community
*Facilitated community SWOT discussion to identify key developmental opportunities in open
community meetings
Final written report that summarizes program findings & recommendations: ‐‐‐ pass around
*Including a review of earlier community‐specific tourism related assessments & studies, and
*Visitor expenditures & niche markets
Program Principles are also found in the Community Tourism Development Manual, Messer (2010)
by the U of M Tourism Center. The manual compiles techniques which have successfully been used
in communities across the United States. Copies of the Manual are available online at:
https://www.bookstores.umn.edu/viewProduct.cgi?productID=35339#.U8avq0CTEvk
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 6

7. RB
Cut if Limited to 20 Min
New York Mills‐ population of 3,325 (2012) located in West Central Minnesota
20 in original 2007 Tourism Assessment Program
Fertile – population 835 (2012) located in Northwest Minnesota
18 in original 2008 Tourism Assessment Program
Lindstrom‐ population 4,408 (2012) located in East Metro Minnesota
55 in original 2008 Tourism Assessment Program
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 7

8. LT
We wanted the evaluation to help us improve the program as well help the community in their tourism
development. (Should I mention Rani’s feedback from communities that the U takes information but doesn’t
give it back to us?)
These were the three methods we used and I will talk about each of them in the next three slides:
1. REM – used to find out what actually happened in the community
2. Community Capitals – used to identify the assets the communities used to make the things happen that
they identified in the REMs
3. ORID – We went back to the community to share their REMs and the community capitals. ORID provided
a framework to internalize and discuss the results.
We selected the following methods for this evaluation process because we wanted to continue a
collaborative approach towards community tourism development that would provide community members
1) insight into the programs purpose and 2) opportunities to take what they learn from the evaluation
process to apply in their day to day work.
Hansen Kollock, D.H., Flage, L, Chazdon, S., Paine, N., and Higgins (2012): Identified a need for different mode
of program evaluation within Extension that aligns better with human cognition‐more so than experimental
research, and outlined the steps that can be taken using Ripple Effect Mapping (REM) to undertake such an
qualitative evaluative process.
Coaching workshop participants through this sample coding and ORID processes also allowed educators to
contextualize the community capitals framework into event examples provided by participants and also
allowed participants the opportunity to frame their development goals using the new development
terminology of the community capitals framework.
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 8

9. LT
How many are familiar with REM (read about it, used it)? It is a way to understand intended and
unintended results of a program. One change or success can lead to other changes successes which
are captured in the REM.
A REM is conducted in the community with program participants as well as others who were not
directly involved in the program. In this case, we had
14 in New York Mills
18 in Lindstrom
22 in Fertile
In pairs they did an appreciative inquiry process to identify successes they were proud of regarding
tourism development since the TAP program (held 4‐5 years earlier) During this session,
Participants were asked questions similar to those Rani posed to you here earlier.
These successes were mapped and linkages between successes (where one thing lead to another)
were identified.
We noted a lot of enthusiasm in each session. The process allowed people the time to reflect on
what they had accomplished over time – when doing the day to day work, it becomes overwhelming
and loose sight of the big picture
9

10. RB
This is just an example of one map for the community of Lindstrom.
By recording effects as they were mentioned in each community discussion, you can see in
this example how an initial effect can be visualized to move outward, into secondary and
tertiary effects.
You can also see how (to map out the TAP program “performance”) we identified three
main knowledge areas addressed by the TAP program, these included increasing each
community’s awareness of : their potential visitor markets, local community infrastructure,
and also potential internal and external relationships that could be fostered to accomplish
their tourism development goals.
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 10

11. LT
How many are familiar with Community Capitals (fingers 1‐5). Emery, Fey & Flora
Our research team took each item on the Ripple Effects Maps and determined which capitals were needed to make that
piece on the map happen. Items could be coded with more than one capital. These were places into an Excel spreadsheet
for tabulation
Natural capital refers to those assets that abide in a location, including resources, amenities, and natural beauty. Natural
capital might include parks, farm land, and features of the landscape or of nature.
Cultural capital reflects the way people “know the world” and how to act within it. Cultural capital might include ethnic
festivals, multi‐lingual populations, or a strong work ethic.
Human capital is understood to include the skills and abilities of people, as well as the ability to access outside resources
and bodies of knowledge in order to increase
our understanding and to identify promising practices. Human capital might include a local leadership development
program, a high level of educational achievement within the population, or a cluster of skilled crafts people.
Social capital reflects the connections between people and organizations or the social glue that make things happen.
Political capital reflects access to power and power brokers, such as access to a local office of a member of Congress,
access to local, county, state, or tribal government officials, or leverage with a regional company.
Financial capital refers to the financial resources available to invest in community capacity building, to underwrite
businesses development, to support civic and social entrepreneurship, and to accumulate wealth for future community
development. Many times financial capital becomes the focus of community efforts.
Built capital refers to the infrastructure that supports a community such as telecommunications, industrial parks, main
streets, water and sewer systems, roads, etc. Built capital is often a focus of community development efforts.
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 11

12. RB
From the ripple maps we identified significant tourism development impacts in the following areas
of knowledge for each community:
1) increased community cooperation through relationship building (Relationships),
2) enhanced marketing efforts resulting from a better understanding of visitor markets (Visitor
Markets),
3) expanded awareness of the area’s Natural, Cultural, Recreational and Event attractions
(Community Infrastructure).
The results listed here were presented back to each of the three communities during the second
workshop session in 2013‐2014.
New York Mills
14 participants in 2013 REM mapping session
17 participants in 2013 workshop session
Fertile
22 community participants in 2013 REM mapping session
5 participants in 2013 workshop session
Lindstrom
18 community participants in 2013 REM mapping session
5 participants in 2014 workshop session
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 12

13. RB
1. Coding findings aligned with unique interests of each community: New York Mills focused on mobilizing
their Cultural Assets, Fertile focused on mobilizing their Financial Assets, and Lindstrom focused on
mobilizing their Social Assets.
The percentages you see here add up to more than 100% because many of the effects reported engaged
more than community capital. The total number of reported effects in each community that were coded
were as follows: New York Mills 71, Fertile 80, and Lindstrom 90.
2. Presenting coded results back to the communities of New York Mills and Fertile helped broaden
participants views concerning assets that their communities could allocate towards tourism‐specific
development efforts.
3. Darger (2014) also suggests that while REM and coding mapping results within the Community Capitals
Framework can help re‐engage and sustain long term development efforts of communities; there is still
room for the process to be more refined to meet the needs of federal and possibly even state program
evaluation and reporting processes.
Mapped event examples using specific capitals :
New York Mills: local company Lund Boats financially supporting new cultural programs
Fertile: Got funding to finally build a bridge to the Agassiz Environmental Nature Center which opened up
additional potential for new lodging expansion and revenue generating opportunities.
Lindstrom: Prior to engaging with the Tourism Assessment program the community did not communicate
well with its neighbors. Yet after being engaged with the program (and strengthening their social
connections ) they have opted now to refer to themselves as the Chisago Lakes Area of Minnesota.
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 13

14. LT
Once the analysis was complete, we were committed to bringing the research back to the
communities.
Lapp (2010) “When we process information and think clearly, we move through four different
modes, sometimes very quickly. These modes of thinking can be labeled: Objective, Reflective ,
Interpretive and Decisional.”
Following the analytical process of ripple effect mapping, we felt that the ORID discussion format
was an opportunity to align the summative thinking by participants with their normal
Objective questions focus the participants attention on what is external and observable
Reflective questions focus participant attention on their reactions to external information
Interpretive questions focus participant attention on their valuation/feeling about their thinking
Decisional questions focus the participant attention on the behaviors or actions they would take
based on their interpretations.
During the last phase of the community workshops in Fertile and Lindstrom in 2014, ORID process
was used to record participants action items that were based on ripple effect maps and the
community capitals.
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 14

15. RB
Overarching takeaway : “Engaged programs need engaged evaluation”
Communities value reflecting on their progress towards development goals and the
programming efforts that help them accomplish this.
When using the community capitals with stakeholders in programming and evaluation:
• Its more helpful to introduce Community Capitals Framework concepts at launch
of a project
• Use of the Community Capitals Framework can help broaden the definition of
success within a community by stakeholders
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 15

16. References:
Chazdon, S. (2014). Ripple Effect Mapping: A Tool for Evaluating the Impacts of Complex Interventions. Training Presentation to Michigan State University Extension.
Chazdon, S. and Paine, N. (2014). Evaluating for Public Value: Clarifying the Relationship Between Public Value and Program Evaluation. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension 2(2).
http://www.jhseonline.com/#!current‐issue/co3j
Cousins, J.B. and Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing Participatory Evaluation . New Directions for Evaluation #80. Winter 1998
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev.1114/
Darger, M. (2014 ). “Capturing the Ripples from Community –Driven Business Retention and Expansion Programs”. Journal of Extension 32(2).
http://www.joe.org/joe/2014april/tt6.php
Emery, M. C. Fey, and C. Flora. (2006). “Using Community Capitals to Develop Assets for Positive Community Change.” CDPractice: Promoting Principles of Good Practice. Community
Development Society. Iss. 13.
http://www.ndcompass.org/community‐building/library.php?libItemID=1273#.U7ngdUCTEvk
Hansen Kollock, D., Flage, L., Chazdon, S., Paine, N., and Higgins, L. (2012). Ripple Effect Mapping: A “Radiant” Way to Capture Program Impacts. Journal of Extension 50 (5).
http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/tt6.php
Lapp, C.(2010). “Focused Conversation ORID Method”. Technology of Participation®. Presentation to LA 8206 University of Minnesota: Making Urban Landscape Space class December
04, 2010
http://ispimi.org/images/meeting/082212/focused_conversation_univ_minnesota.pdf
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977). “Importance‐Performance Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 (1), pp. 77‐79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1250495?origin=JSTOR‐pdf
Messer, C.C. et al. (2010).Community Tourism Development. 3d ed. University of Minnesota Extension.
http://www.bookstores.umn.edu/viewProduct.cgi?productID=35339#.Uma_jT‐d5Co
Messer, C.C. (2014) Evaluating Developmental Impacts of Community Tourism Educational Programming: A Minnesota Example. IACD Conference Presentation, Glasglow, Scotland.
Ritchie, J.R.B & Crouch, G.I. (2003). “The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective ”UK; CAB International: CABI Publishing.
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=085199847X
Robinson, J.W. & Meikle‐Yaw, P.A. (2007) “Building Social Capital and Community Capacity with Signature Projects: A Case Study of Two Diverse Delta Communities”. Journal of
Extension 45(2).
http://www.joe.org/joe/2007april/a4.php
© 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 16

17. © 2014 Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. 17