In my tourism development work with communities I try and find models
which are comprehensible and implementable.  I have been using "good"
museums as a model for communities to look to when planning for tourism.
 
Please comment on, criticize and critique this (admittedly simple) model:
 
A good museum cares foremost for its resources, so should a community
A good museum knows every resource it possesses and has it registered,
catalogued, so should a community.
A good museum understands the conservation need for every resource
(artifact, specimen), so should a community.
A good museum only displays some of its resources, so should a community.
A good museum interprets the resources it shares with visitors, so should
a community.
A good museum offers a variety of ways to experience it (self-guided,
guided, etc), so should a community
A good museum will have opportunities for visitors to "vote yes" with
their money (food, gift shop), so should communities
A good museum changes exhibits so they get return visitors, so should a
community.
 
You get the idea, does this work from your perspective(s)?  It seems to
work well for my communities, although certain aspects are new to them
(conservation, registration, etc).
 
I am trying to get communities to realize that they have people in their
area with skills that are transferable to a community-context.  I also
want them to realize that they don't need to share everything  with
visitors.  Some things can't handle visitation and should not be shared.
 
Mike Teskey
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
phone: 303-393-7623
 
p.s. I call this the Mega-Museum Model