Business interests frequently remind us that no economic activity is costless or risk-free. They urge, for example, that any proposed government regulation be subject to an accounting of costs vs. benefits. How ironic, then, that when we and others observe that tourism has costs and risks as well as economic rewards, we meet with a mix of denial and accusations that we are out to kill the industry.

The evidence that tourism has a downside — from traffic congestion, to water pollution, poverty wages, and friction between residents and visitors — is irrefutable and by no means limited to Maine. Yet, as one of us wrote in a recent Maine Center for Economic Policy study, there is also no doubt that “tourism at its best” brings economic, social and environmental benefits. Far from bashing tourism, the study suggests that we can devise a tourism strategy that both contributes to economic prosperity and minimizes damage to our community life and “natural capital.”

Tourism at its best has four key features:

It sustains the stability and diversity of local and regional economies, helping to supplant declining sectors.

It creates quality jobs and self-employment opportunities for local residents, stressing skilled work, livable incomes, employment security, and chances for learning and career advancement.

It fosters host communities’ cultural and civic vitality and their physical attractiveness, by helping to maintain historical, scenic and recreational amenities that benefit both residents and tourists.

It sustains natural attractions and healthy ecosystems, the foundation of high-quality tourist experiences.

Maine’s tourism lobby assures us that markets and private enterprise will take care of these challenges, if only the state will increase its tourism promotion budget to bring in more visitors. But blind faith in markets and private interests is as misguided as faith in governmental micro-management to solve economic development and environmental problems. “Tourism at its best” will require the following far-sighted planning and creative public-private partnerships at community, regional, and state levels:

1. Local stakeholder groups should develop a shared vision of the type and extent of tourism they seek. The Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) might initiate genuinely democratic dialogues, bringing all stakeholders to the table, not just tourism businesses and conservation groups. Tourism employees, host community residents, and future generations will all be affected by tourism’s cumulative impacts. The recent “Sustainable Cobscook” visioning exercise might serve as a model.

2. The Maine Office of Tourism (MOT) should have more resources to support regional tourism planning, such as Down East Maine’s promising “Destiny 2000” project. Communities are interdependent and need state help to develop regional destination packages that encourage tourists to stay longer and spend more, especially in less visited destinations. MOT assistance can be especially helpful to regional groups attempting to develop cultural and heritage attractions, increase the “value added” of tourism services, and encourage tourist businesses to purchase inputs locally.

3. Far-sighted planning requires evaluation tools and information that are currently lacking. The biggest information gaps relate to tourism’s impacts on communities and the environment. When “gateway” towns south of Baxter State Park turn to tourism promotion, they should be able to answer such questions as: How will more tourists affect traffic, police and waste disposal costs, water quality, and congestion of natural attractions?

To help tourism planners answer these questions, the State Planning Office should gather socio-economic information and develop forecasting and evaluation techniques while the Department of Conservation should inventory natural resources and assess their carrying capacities.

4. A special effort is needed to extend the state’s small business development programs to the thousands of dispersed tourist service providers. We might learn from America’s successful agricultural extension model, which has combined management, technology, finance, and marketing assistance to family farmers. Since many tourism employees receive low wages and few benefits, a core goal should be spreading best workplace practices, like those of the Freeport Inn and Moody’s Diner, two employers committed to expanding workers’ skills, responsibilities, job security and benefits.

5. We need to invest more in training tourism sector entrepreneurs and front-line employees. Highly skilled and versatile workers are a key means both to top quality tourist services and quality jobs.

6. We should enact more comprehensive tourist user fees, including small increases in the sales tax for lodging, class A restaurants and recreational equipment. Sales tax proposals always evoke business resistance. In this case, however, the revenues raised from such a tax would be dedicated to financing the initiatives described above. They would also be used to maintain, restore, and enhance Maine’s priceless natural attractions, the key to sustainable tourist growth.

7. In coordination with these activities, the state’s tourism promotion budget should be increased.

We are convinced that, together, the initiatives and partnerships described here would put Maine on the path toward tourism at its best.

David Vail (e-mail dvail@Bowdoin.EDU) is Adams-Catlin Professor of Economics at Bowdoin College and co-author of “Tourism and Maine’s Future.” John Buell (jbuell@acadia.net) is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor.