ABSTRACT
Tourism developments plans are prepared to ensure orderly growth and development of the tourism industry .When the implementation outcomes of such plans are defined, the conventional approach is usually based on the 'ex-post evaluation'. It is done long after the implementation of the plan is completed to enable identification of short comings and to learn lessons that can influence future decisions. Positive as the ex-post evaluation is there is value in evaluation during implementation, which usually is rarely carried out. This study is an attempt to appraise the Kano Comprehensive Tourism Master Plan (KCTMP) while its implementation is still on-going using the 'process evaluation' method. Such approach is to enable the project mangers learn vital lessons that can lead to adjustment of strategies towards achieving improved outcomes. The KCTMP was prepared in 2005 and is to be implemented through 2005 to2020 the implementation is designed to be in phases of 4, 5 and 5 years horizons. The plan implementation began in 2005, currently the plan is in its second phase of implementation with the take-off stage (2005-2007 and phase 1 (2006-2020) completed in 2010. Data for the study were collected through interviews, field survey and from secondary sources. For the field survey purposive sampling techniques was adopted in which 4,132 samples of tourists' receipts were collected from two accommodations and 482 receipts from Kano state tourism board. A set up criteria were used to establish the outcomes, explanations and implications. The research reveals that, the level of implementation of KCTMP is low. The problems militating against the successful implementation of KCTMP stem from a number of factors including the process of its preparation. The other factors are insufficient funding, duplication of responsibilities, low stake holder involvement, inadequate marketing and promotion, and poor publicity. Others are that the KCTMP failed to establish the role of Kano tourism industry in the areas of job creation and income generation. There is also the absence of any relevant information on the existing growth pattern of the tourism industry which can serve as a basis for benchmarking towards future evaluations. Tourism attraction and potentials were also poorly indentified as they were subjectively selected which later became a bottleneck to private invest.