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