Penelope Katsouli Dissertation

of 119 /119
Exploring Collaborative and Community Based Planning in Tourism Case Study Sitia-Cavo Sidero Project Dissertation Submitted September 2007 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M. Sc. in Tourism Management and Marketing. Katsouli Pinelopi Business School University of Nottingham I hereby declare that this dissertation is all my own work, except as indicated in the text: Signature ______________________ Date _____/_____/_____

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Penelope Katsouli Dissertation

Exploring Collaborative and Community Based Planning in Tourism Case Study Sitia-Cavo Sidero Project

Dissertation Submitted September 2007 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M. Sc. in Tourism Management and Marketing.

Katsouli Pinelopi

Business School University of Nottingham

I hereby declare that this dissertation is all my own work, except as indicated in the text:

Signature ______________________ Date _____/_____/_____

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation towards my supervisor Adam Blake for his assistance and understanding. I sincerely thank my family, Katerina, Christos and Geogia for their supportiveness and special care all those years. Invaluable was the contribution of my beloved friends, Alexandros, Athina and Dimitrios who spent lots of their free time, over the summer. Finally, I would like also to thank all those who participated in my research and foremost, I owe a special thank to Ioannis Perakis who supplied me with a great variety of secondary data, retrieved from his personal database.

i

Abstract

Abstract

The present paper has explored the policy planning and development in emerging tourism settings in Sitia. Comprehensively, this study, in the name of sustainable development, focused on the extent of collaborative and community-based planning. For that reason exploratory research has been used; the context and the structure of the previous chapter aimed to uncover the socially constructed reality of Sitias stakeholders, within the dynamic environment, and respond to why and how questions. Therein significant was the contribution of eight different interviewees, closely related with the field, as well as the obtained secondary data that provided valuable indeed background information (Bryman & Bell, 2003).Briefly, a limited scope of collaboration has been implied within the Sitias district, as the range of participants is not representative of all the affected bodies by tourism development, instead it would be better to talk of a private and public sector cooperation (Timothy, 1998). Thereby, the intensity of collaboration is also limited; during the 15 years of negotiation about the Cavo Sidero investment limited working groups, conferences and surveys took place that indicate low direct interaction among stakeholders and minimal information dissemination (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). So, whilst accepting the spatial proximity of local authorities to the domain and to the community the need to empower them came at the forefront. Further, from a long term perspective local authorities enriched with special skilled human resources and in concert with the private sector should invest on building community capacity through education and raise of self awareness, in order locals to be capable of coping with complex and demanding issues and then undertaking projects with independence and skills (Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p. 2

ii

Glossary of terms

Glossary of terms

G. N. T. O.: GDP: G. G. 4420/2006: M. P. E.: OAS: O.A.E.D.: O. D. E. P: S. H. O. O. A. P.: municipality of Sitia. /: YPEHODE:

Greek national tourism organisation: Gross domestic Profit Official Government Gazette Study of Environmental Impacts Development Organisation of Sitia Greek Manpower Employment Organisation Organisation Management of Ecclesiastical Fortune

General spatial plan around the rural and urban areas of the

Technical Chamber of Eastern Crete Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works

Contents

Contents PAGE Acknowledgements Abstract Glossary of termsi ii iii

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.0 1.1 1.1

Introduction- Choice of topic. Collaboration and Community- Based Planning approach. Research Question and Objectives.

1 2 3

22.0

Chapter 2 Literature reviewTourism planning and policy. 5 5 8 12 16 16 24 32

2.1 Tourism policy. 2.2 2.3 2.4 The role of government (state). Tourism Planning. Community based and Collaboration planning concepts.

2.4.1 Collaboration planning. 2.4.2 Community based planning. 2.5 Actors, Power and, Policy Networks.

3

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1

Introduction.

37 38 40 42 43 45

3.2 Research design. 3.3 Qualitative research.

3.3.1 Qualitative research (justification of choice). 3.4 In- depth and Semi-structured interviews (justification of choice)

3. 5 Format and context of interview questions.

i

Contents

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Data Collection. Secondary Data. Data analysis. Limitations and ethics.

46 48 49 50

44.1 4.2 4.3 4.3

Chapter 4 Findings and data analysisIntroduction Tourism related overview of Crete and Sitia Cavo Sidero integrated resort Leading Actors of this investment 52 52 60 63 63 65 69 71

4.3.1 The Greek Church 4.3.2 State 4.3.3 Community 4.3.4 Ecologists

5 6

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices

75

Appendix A Who did attend in the daily Conference in Sitia? Appendix B Personal Interviews-Questions English Version Greek Version Appendix C Written interview Appendix D Proposed terms from the representative of the Ecological group Appendix E The Inter-scientific Group that conducted the M.P.E. 104 103 101 95 98 93

ii

Contents

List of figuresPage

Figure 2.1 Development of tourism policy objectives Figure 2.2 Schematic structure of the state with reference to tourism Figure 2.3 An evolutionary model of tourism partnerships. Figure 2.4 The four types of cooperation Figure 2.5 A Normative Model of Participatory Tourism Planning Figure 2.6 Normative typologies of community participation Figure 2.7 Tourism Stakeholder Map Figure 2.8 Stakeholder mapping: The power/interest matrix

6 9 22 23 25 31 35 36

Figure 4.1 Map of Sitias District and Location of Cavo Sidero Investment Figure 4.2 A close up to the Peninsula of Cavo Sidero.

62 62

iii

Contents

List of tables Page

Table 1

Phases of Tourism Planning in Spain

14

Table 2.2 Bipolar View of tourism planning approaches

27

Table 3.1 Exploratory research

39

Table 3.2 Uses of different types of interview in each of the main research categories 44

iv

Chapter1: Introduction

Chapter 1

1.0 Introduction- Choice of topic.

This particular thesis will be occupied with issues surrounded the case study of Sitia that is located in the North- East coast of Crete. The main focus will be Sitia, since tourism has a far more visible effect in rural areas, than in urban areas and consequently a greater effect on rural residents (Tosun, 2006, p.503). At present time, Sitia experiences emergent tourism settings that involve the development of an integrated resort Cavo Sidero, accompanied with the development of regional infrastructure, such as the internationalization of the local airport and the further expansion of the local portmarina. It seems likely that all those actions aimed to assist the tourism product diversification and increase the destinations competitiveness. However, severe frictions and objections have been raised towards the influx of external private capital and developers, as encouraged by the already involved government in the tourism development (Jamal and Getz, 1995). So, this particular case has attracted the writers interest, because of the unreasonable, almost a decade, postponement of those developmental initiatives that endangers, at the end of the day, the great potentials for this locality. In brief, this situation holds at the pre-construction phase the mega-project and could be translated as a lack of collaboration and coordination among the enriched tourism domain, where diverse actors with conflicting values and goals exist (Jamal and Getz, 1995).

So far, the island in total has been characterised by regional imbalances in terms of development, where some parts have reached the stagnation level and others have just reached the developmental phase (Andriotis, 2003). Despite its polymorphic status, the planning process of its tourism development is rather centralized, and controlled mainly by the Greek Ministry of Tourism (ibid). That is often perceived from Cretans as an external intervention, which ignores local reality and their real needs. Noteworthy, this Page 1

Chapter1: Introduction

situation contradicts with the recent decentralization tendency of decision making process in many countries, where local governments are getting more power to direct development and manage local tourism (Timothy, 1999).

1.1

Collaboration and Community- Based Planning approach.

Broadly speaking, tourism development goes together with some conflicting interest groups such as conservationists versus the developers (Markwick, 2000). The former prioritize conservation issues of development and the latter economic ones. Accordingly, the biggest challenge for any proposed tourism development plan would be to involve all the affected parties within this process (Aas et al., 2005) that seeks to optimize the potential contribution of tourism to human welfare and environmental quality (Timothy, 1999, p. 371). Under this respect, cooperation and collaboration are major issues in tourism planning that invoke direct dialogue among participating stakeholders, which may diminish all the apparent power imbalances (Reed, 1997). Therein, power, as a concept, has to do not only with social actions and interrelationships of actors, but also with negotiations of the most favourable terms of strategies (Verbole, 2000). Therefore, collaborative planning in tourism context is a process of joint decision making, among autonomous key stakeholders, to resolve planning problems and or to manage issues related to the planning and development (De Araujo & Bramwell, 1999, p. 369). However, for the implementation of collaborative planning approach is imperative to identify and legitimize all the potential stakeholders (Roberts and Simpson, 1999), regardless the notion of an endless list of potential stakeholders (Robson and Robson, 1996). Beyond this identification, it is also vital to understand and explore stakeholders interests, values and existed inter-relational networks that should be all encompassed in a congruent manner within strategic frameworks (ibid).

Meanwhile, as the tourism system is highly fragmented no single organisation or individual can exert direct control over the destinations development process (Reed,

Page

2

Chapter1: Introduction

1997). Accordingly, the contribution of the Greek Ministry of Tourism in Sitia remains still debatable. Therefore, the author suggests the establishment of a democratic and independent, from national and local elites, convener such as a DMO that could incorporate all the involved multi-stakeholders, with the aim to secure balanced power differentials, joint decision making and foremost a cohesive congruent planning policy. In a manner of speaking, if tourism is to become successful and self perpetuating industry many have advocated, it needs to be planned and managed as a renewable resource industry based on local capacities and community decision making (Murphy, 1985, as cited by Hall, 2000, p. 33). Consequently, this requires the adoption of community based planning, which proclaims collaborative and coordinated efforts, democratization of governing processes and foremost communitys empowerment (Ritchie, 1999; Marzano and Scott, 2006). In turn, all those together could preserve the economic, environmental and social sustainability of a destination.

1.2 Research Question and Objectives.Based on the aforementioned the writer aims to explore whether exists any democratized and coordinated approach of tourism planning and development in Sitia that could possibly solve problems, such as conflicts and preserve its social and environmental sustainability. So, the objectives of this research are:

i. Explore whether organisational and non-organisational bodies share the sense ofcommon purpose and vision.

ii. Explore how the Greek government participates in Sitias tourism developmentand evaluate its collaborative stance.

iii. Understand how stakeholders perceive collaboration and community- basedplanning and investigate actors representation and involvement within the planning and development process

Page

3

Chapter1: Introduction

iv. Explore why the tourism development and planning process have not beendemocratized in this emergent tourism settings and how it could be done.

v. Understand how consensus making is affected by power differentials.

Hence, this paper, under the umbrella of tourism policy and development planning, seeks to uncover stakeholders beliefs, attitudes and behaviours always though in correlation with their legitimate power, their personal interests and lastly competitors actions. So, it would be interesting to explore the way that people respond to the tourism phenomenon, especially when considering the premature status of a destination, like Sitia, in terms of tourism.

The remainder of this dissertation will be comprised by other 4 chapters. Chapter 2 known as literature review helps to do some preliminary thinking [] before [the writer] begins the search itself (Hart, 2001, as cited by Silverman, 2005, p.295). Therefore other peoples writing will be reviewed about government roles, policy and planning concepts, collaboration and community based planning approaches and lastly the issues of actors, power and policy networks will not be ignored. After this directive chapter, the methodology of research follows. Chapter 3 will illustrate the research process, the use of qualitative research stream and data collection methods will be justified, the data collection process will be described and finally some further issues about data analysis will be considered, meaning the limitations and ethics. Next, Chapter 4 will present the findings of this case study, where the social constructed reality (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003) ought to be compared and applied with issues originated from Chapter 2. Herein, valuable is the contribution of Greek bibliography as secondary data, due to the lack of official reports and surveys. Lastly, Chapter 5 will draw the conclusions of this study and will make suggestions for further research in the near future.

Page

4

Chapter2: Literature Review

Chapter 2

2.0 Tourism planning and policy2.1. Tourism policy

Nowadays and in the near future, tourism industry will experience major changes, in the operational level and in its structure, as an aftermath of the new tourism revolution (Poon, 1994, p. 91) and the emerging new consumer tastes. The success though of tourism rests, both at micro and macro levels, on the way organisations and destinations are planned, managed, and marketed (Costa and Buhalis, 2006). A prerequisite will be the formulation of an adequate public tourism policy; that ought to regulate the tourism industry as a whole and its related activities (ibid). In a manner of speaking about the held changes within the tourism industry and before reviewing the tourism planning and policy concepts as such, Ritchie quoted two major trends, as outlined by the Tourism Policy Forum in the George Washington University (GWU), which were believed to shape the future of tourism policy in the 1990s:

(1) The physical environment is taking centre stage in tourism development and management; furthermore, there is recognition that there are finite limitations to tourism development in terms of both physical and social carrying capacity of destinations and;

(2) that resident responsive tourism is the watchword for tomorrow; community demands for active participation in the setting of the tourism agenda and its priorities for tourism development and management cannot be ignored( Hawkins et al., 1991, as cited by Ritchie, 1999, p. 206).

Page

5

Chapter2: Literature ReviewAlong with the two aforementioned changes, it should be also added the Third Way, as introduced by Burns in 2004 that challenges the state of affairs of governmental policies and highlights a more active involvement and interaction of the society with the state. In more details, Giddens mentions that a Third Way refers to a framework of thinking and policymaking that seeks to adapt social democracy to a world, which has changed fundamentally over the past two or three decades. It is a third way in the sense that is an attempt to transcend both old-style social democracy and neoliberalism (1998, as cited by Burns, 2004, p. 25). These changes aggregately indicate a turn from the mass tourism towards the sustainable tourism imperative or with other words from the Fordian Tourism to the New Age of Tourism (Fayos -Sola, 1996). Where the focal point of tourism policy becomes the enhancement of competitiveness, that is defined as the capacity to generate profits in excess of the normal benefits in a sustainable way (ibid, 409)(Look at Figure 2.1). Nevertheless, Governments, which in public espouse the fine sounding language of the sustainable and ethical high ground of local community tourism development may be subject to external pressures, [] which dictates a policy of economic liberalization and foreign exchange maximisation (Mowforth and Munt, 1998, p. 257).

Figure 2.1 Development of tourism policy objectives (Source Fayos-Sola, 1996, p.409).

Page

6

Chapter2: Literature Review

So, what is really tourism policy? Tourism policy, as with other public policies, is a political activity that reflects societys values and ideologies, economic conditions distribution of power institutions, and decision making processes (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Further, Amoah and Baum opine that policy is a process as well as a product; [] it is used to refer to a process of decision making and also to the product of that process (1997, p. 7). This quotation reassures indirectly Pressman and Wildavskys (1973) causality of policies, for instance, towards a destination; wherein policies, as authoritative actions, point to a chain of causation from x conditions to y future consequences (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Tourism policy, whilst being conceived as a development strategy and despite this causality over the local resources, ought to serve the public interest through managing and planning those resources (Andriotis, 2006). Hence, tourism policy performs, as a sum of regulated guidelines, which determines specific objectives and actions that aimed to meet the needs, for instance, of an emerging tourism destination setting (Amoah and Baum, 1997; Reed, 1999). Last but not least, tourism public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do with respect to tourism (Jenkins, 1993, as cited by Hall, 2000, p.8). In every respect, public policy is the focal point of government activity that is often vulnerable and adaptive to the economic social and cultural conditions of a civil society (Hall, 2000).Occasionally though, severe criticism has been raised about governments inefficiencies, actions and inactions with respect to tourism and the environment (ibid).

A hallmark of those inefficiencies can be traced on governments lack of control of tourism development (Scheyvens, 2002) and substantially on their varying degrees of involvement in tourism policy, from a reactive to a more passive role (Hall, 2000). Noteworthy, policymaking is increasingly characterised by dynamic multi-actor interactions, complex power differentials and uneven resource and information exchange between actors and agencies (Dredge, 2006, p. 562). Herein, it should be added Zhangs et al position (1999) about policy making derived from their study about the Chinese tourism policies; they state that policy making is a policy arena where institutional arrangements, values and power arrangements [occur among different] interest groups,

Page

7

Chapter2: Literature Reviewinstitutions, and significant individuals (p.472-3). That is why, some countries follow a path of tourism development dictated primarily by overseas interests and capital and some others that seek to preserve the socioeconomic and cultural integrity of the country itself and its population (Scheyvens, 2002). Above all, the way in which policy

decisions are made (Hall, 2000, p.8) and implemented should not be overridden from this debate about inefficiencies, where all public, private and non profit sectors would be involved and legally liable if needed. Respectively, Zhang et al. attached in their study the tourism policy process as presented by Hall in 1994:

(1) policy demands from both inside and outside the political system; (2) policy decisions by the political authority, which are authoritative rather than routine; (3) policy outputs; and (4) intended or unintended policy impacts(1999, p. 473).

Throughout this process, they suggest that the governments roles could be identified-clarified, even if they reach the mismanagement levels. So what is the governments role in tourism policy development? The next section will seek to shed some light on this question, even if tourism industry is complex by definition, where in some cases the norms of chaos dominate, especially when considering the transition from the Fordist into the more flexible, turbulent and less predictable era (Tyler and Dinan, 2001).

2.2 The role of government (state)

Although tourism is an activity sustained mainly by private initiatives, simultaneously various other groups have played at the national level a significant role in the development of tourism, either directly or indirectly (Gunn and Var, 2002); those groups might be the law enforcement executive branch, legislative branch, judiciary and regulatory, public service quasi-public agencies, statutory authorities and government enterprises (ibid, p.111). Oversimplified, those set of officials, political institutions,

Page

8

Chapter2: Literature Reviewbureaucratic arms, laws, regulations, and public/civil servants compose the state (Hall, 2000) (Look at Figure 2.2). In order to avoid confusion, the term state encompasses the whole apparatus [within a territory, whereas] the government exercises the power (ibid, p. 134). In this regard, governments could play an active role, to a lesser or a greater extent, as a facilitator and promoter of tourism development, whilst they hold the required sociopolitical legitimacy and institutional capacity to bring together and coordinate activities of diverse interest groups that are usually preoccupied with the provision of tourism and hospitality services(Akama, 2002, p.2). Therefore, it is vital to clarify the governments role within the tourism system and identify whether its actions and structures encourage or discourage coordination of programmes and involved parties.Government Enterprises Executive and Legislature Judiciary and Regulatory Systems and Agencies

Lower Level Government

Institutions of the state

Public service bureaucracy

Para (semi) State Individuals and agencies Statutory Authorities

Law Enforcement Agencies

Figure 2.2: Schematic structure of the state with reference to tourism (Source: Hall and Jenkins, 1995, p.20).

Consequently, the reasons that the states have been involved in the tourism development are twofold. Principally, they need to investigate the cause and effect relationship between the actual legislations and policies (e.g. taxation) upon tourism

Page

9

Chapter2: Literature Review(Jeffries, 2001). On top of that they need to introduce legislation, policies and programmes with the aim to support and boost tourism (ibid). Apart from them, Hartley and Hooper have given a more pluralistic position about the main objectives which encourage the state participation. Public sector policy objectives which may be sought from tourism include, the creation of income and wealth; job creation; maintaining and improving the image of an area, its environment and the quality of life; maintaining and improving links both within and between nations; and contributing to the nation's balance of payments position(1990, as cited by Baum, 1994, p.185).

Nevertheless, those given reasons about government-state intervention should not be perceived as a panacea, since the degree of intervention and the reasons that motivate them to do so, vary considerably from country to country; for instance tourism in mature destinations has less need of public involvement than elsewhere (Jeffries, 2001, p. 112). Additionally the level of government intervention might be also affected by the political structures; in capitalistic countries there was little intervention by government in policy making, where laissez faire tourism development, by the private sector, has dominated (Gunn and Var, 2002, p. 109). Overall, the extent of the states role in tourism varies according to the conditions and circumstances peculiar to each country i.e. political, economic, constitutional system, socio-economic development degree of tourism development (IUOTO, 1974, as cited by Jamal, 2007, p.22).

Recently, though regardless of the degree of tourism development and the political structures, the society requests via lobbying efforts some form of governmental intervention and monitoring, due to the apparent increased environmental pressures (Akama, 2002; Gunn and Var, 2002), since the states role [] [ought to be] indispensable for successful [sustainable] tourism development (Bramwell, 1999, p.72). For that reason, Hall has introduced a classification of governments roles in tourism, where five of them were obtained from the International Union of Travel Organisation (1974), the coordination, planning, legislation and regulation, entrepreneur, stimulation and then other two extra roles added, the social tourism role and the broader role of interest protection(Hall, 2000). In accordance to these distinctive roles, the width of

Page

10

Chapter2: Literature Reviewresponsibilities that the authoritative bodies need to take for the implementation of tourism policies is confirmed and inevitably it could bring out the argument of possible operational conflicts, overlaps and bottlenecks; since policies at one level of government may contradict policies at another level, or perhaps are implemented with little consultation between levels (Hall and Jenkins, 1995, p. 29). Therefore issues of coordinated inter-organisation relationships in the public domain should be perceived one of the great truisms of tourism planning and policy (Hall, 1999, p. 277).

Meanwhile, the private sector, the catalyst for tourism development (FayosSola, 1996, p.409), in the form of businesses and non profit organisations, should not be excluded from the determination of policy settings; indeed they could contribute with their actions and inactions to the fulfillment of reciprocal tourism goals and objectives (Gunn and Var, 2002). Since, no single organisation or individual can exert direct control over the destinations development process, [even at the government level](Jamal and Getz, 1995, p. 193). As a proof of that. Dredge notes recently, in her study about policy networks the shift from government to governance (Rhodes, 1997, as cited by Dredge, 2006, p. 270), where the governments offset their own responsibilities and the increasingly blurred roles of public and private sectors, in the policymaking (ibid) comes into the forefront. Thus, state and non- state actors compose networks and coalitions; where those varied parties are bound together through either shared beliefs or resource dependencies [] and [often compete] to influence the policy processes and outcomes (Costa and Buhalis, 2006, p. 158). However, Hall and Jenkins stressed in 1995 the danger of inevitable clientelistic relationships between the empowered private sector and governments in the name of development, as the former expects to become the main policy shaper, in return to the risks they took, especially in developing countries. Therefore it is imperative for governments to play foremost a

regulatory role rather than allowing elites or international interests to usurp or bypass state control (Scheyvens, 2002, p.174).

Page

11

Chapter2: Literature Review2.3 Tourism Planning

Planning is a complex [] many-sided phenomenon

with

social, economic,

political, anthropological, psychological and technological [implications; as a result] the definition and scope of planning is ambiguous (Tosun and Jenkins, 1998, p. 101). Initially, it is commonly accepted that places adopting unplanned tourism development face environmental and social problems, low destination competitiveness and high conflict resolution costs (Yuksel and Bramwell, 1999). In contradiction, tourism planning is widely known as a process that aims to maximise the positive contribution of tourism to a destination and possibly to mitigate the subsequent problems arisen from this given economic activity (Timothy, 1999). To do so, a precondition would be the adoption of an ongoing monitoring system that allows periodic or permanent revision of policies and development plans (Lawson and Baud-Bovy, 1977, as cited by Pearce 2000, p. 191), after considering and evaluating a priori, the macro forces and the given set of goals. So far, the most widely accepted goals of tourism planning have been the enhanced visitor satisfaction, better business, sustainable resource use and community integration (Gunn and Var, 2002, p.22). Hence, planning appears as a critical element for the long term viability of tourist destinations and determines who wins and who loses from the tourism development process (Hall, 2000, p.15).

Tourism planning is maturing as a discipline and its approaches have been evolved from an uncomplicated view of tourism into a more sophisticated, decentralized, and integrated approach (Timothy, 1998). That means planning paradigms have eschewed from the narrow concerns of physical planning and promotion into a more balanced, where priority has been placed on the environment and the communitys [participation] (Timothy, 1999, p.372). Indeed, new paradigms emphasise on the coordination of public and private sector organisations and bring public participation right into the core of the decision making process(Costa and Buhalis, 2006), since tourism impacts are most apparent at the level of destination community(Timothy, 1999, p. 372). While reviewing the literature, such planning approaches have been thoroughly analysed by Getz (1987) and later on by Tosun and Jenkins (1998). Those

Page

12

Chapter2: Literature Reviewacademics covered those approaches from the same basis but expressed slightly in a differentiated manner. The former has named four broad, and in some cases, overlapping approaches, which are neither mutually exclusive nor a reflection of a chronological evolution (Baidal, 2004, p.317). These are boosterism, economic, physical-spatial, and communityoriented approaches. Baidal though, in 2004, expanded further these approaches and added the strategic approach and planning for sustainable tourism, as partially indicated by Hall in 2000 and keeps pace with the New Tourism Age (Fayos-Sola, 2006). Comparatively, the latter introduced the unplanned tourism era, the beginning of partly supply oriented tourism planning period, the entirely supply oriented tourism planning period, the market or demand oriented tourism development planning period and finally the contemporary planning approach(Tosun and Jenkins, 1998). This classification

differs from the previous one, on the basis that it has been evolved continuously and over time (ibid, p.102). Additionally, it has been attached here a table that illustrates the evolution of tourism planning and policies in Spain in real terms, as given by Baidal (2004); where in the late 1950s practices, that respond to the boosterism approach, have been identified and later on from the 1994s and onwards a mixture of sustainable and physical planning have been adopted, without overriding the empowered local community.

Page

13

Chapter2: Literature Review

19591974: Indicative planning in a centralized State

Integration of tourism into State indicative planning. Lack of regional- and local-scale planning. The growth of supply is favored despite serious infrastructure deficits and high environmental costs. Land use and Town planning is subordinated to tourism growth.

19751982: Guiding plans in the transition towards a decentralized system

An unsuccessful attempt is made to link land use and tourism planning. Non-compulsory tourism planning. Plans contained recommendations not implemented. Provincial-scale plans are prepared that can be

methodologically attributed to the physical approach, but without a real application.

19891993: Reaction plans and structural adjustment policies

Central Administration-promoted plans are replaced with specific studies (statistics, marketing, etc.). White Books are developed in Catalonia and the Balearics that help design the first regional tourist policy. Urban growth under local control thanks to municipal autonomy laws

19821989: States withdrawal and first regional Plans

Reactive plans in which the loss of competitiveness drives the strategic planning approach. The Mediterranean regions with a greater specialization in tourism develop strategic plans with a sectorial approach. The legal basis to link tourism and territorial planning in the regional scale is created but not implemented. Start of planning within the European regional policy (19891993 EC Support Framework).

From 1994: Regional Planning formalized in Autonomous Tourism Laws

Regional and sub-regional planning instruments are regulated in tourism laws, but their elaboration takes considerably long. Tourism plans are differently linked to land use and town planning depending on the

Autonomous Communities, but few planning initiatives have been developed. Rise in value of the local scale with inter-administrative Dynamization cooperation On the (Excellence theoretical and level,

Plans).

reinterpretation of the physical approach with the incorporation of sustainable development principles.

Page

14

Chapter2: Literature ReviewTable 1: Phases of Tourism Planning in Spain (Source Baidal, 2004, p. 320).

At this stage, only Tosun and Jenkins propositions will be reviewed, due to the world limit constraints; bear in mind though that along with this brief analysis, there will be, in congruence, some reference to Getzs proposed planning approaches. To start with, the common place, for both unplanned tourism development era and boosterism, is that every tourism action clearly lacks of planning (Baidal, 2004; Hall, 2000; Tosun and Jenkins, 1998). Here, mass tourism has been deemed as a mean for destinations economic prosperity, without assessing critically its consequences (Baidal, 2004). There is also no doubt that community has been excluded from any form of tourism planning and decision making (Hall, 2000).

Following, the beginning of partly supply oriented and the entirely supply oriented tourism planning signify a period of intensive development of amenities, attractions, sources of accessibility that aimed to satisfy the continually increasing demand, where planning has played just a minor role, without considering the challenges of cultural and environmental degradation (Tosun and Jenkins, 1998). So, during these planning phases the public sector place high priority to the enhancement of economic indicators of a place, region, and nation; the same as in the economic planning approach, but it ignores consistently the social and environmental aspects (Baidal, 2004). Next, market or demand oriented tourism development planning meant to attract and tempt a large number of tourists (ibid) with shifting tastes from mass towards alternative and greener forms of tourism. At this point, planning and marketing methods might be challenged from the so called experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1998, p.97). Where, the key is to win the hearts and the minds of [] [travelers within the competitive maze] and [travelers][] will ultimately reward you with their almighty dollars (Hauser, 2005,p. 104).

Finally, Tosun and Jenkins ended up with the contemporary planning approaches, such as sustainable development, system approaches, integrated planning, communitybased tourism, comprehensive planning and continuous and flexible approach; the

Page

15

Chapter2: Literature Reviewoverwhelming goal for those planning approaches is to sustain tourism as a vehicle for sociocultural and economic development (1998). For instance, community planning promotes a local tourism development control scheme where residents get benefited from tourism development and in turn avoids conflicts, which might endanger industrys future viability (Baidal, 2004). Additionally, Hall comments that community planning is a bottom up form of planning [] and residents are regarded as the basic planning unit (2000, p. 32). Further, Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini opine that among these approaches, the collaborative planning approach appears as a mean to overcome the recognised fragmented nature of tourism development and solve the many problems that arise when there is a lack of understanding and few shared common goals between the many parties often involved in tourism(2002, p.71). Certainly then, planning becomes subject of bargaining, negotiation, compromise, politics, and values exchange among the all involved parties (Hall, 2000, p.7). So, this study will elaborate upon the community and collaboration planning concepts. This choice though, should not be perceived necessarily as an admittance of excellence amongst the rest.

2.4 Community based and Collaboration planning concepts.

2.4.1

Collaboration planning In the early days of the 21st century, tourism planners, managers and academics

regardless of their tourism objectives (i.e. economic, conservation etc.) and under the complex interdependent settings of tourism industry, recognised the pronounced need and power of collaborative actions (Selin, 1999), since individual actions are not anymore sufficient enough (Getz and Jamal, 1995). At the same time, as the level of competition has intensified in a global scale, significant pressures have been exerted for an increased democratization of governing processes at all levels [], [with] greater involvement of the citizenry, even within the tourism context (Ritchie, 1999, p. 208). These changing circumstances, together with the new emerging tourism needs, ought to surround the tourism planning concept with the sustainable ethos, norms, and principles (Timothy, 1999). However, Ryan had differentiated his position whilst he suggested instead a turn

Page

16

Chapter2: Literature Reviewtowards the sustained value creation for the tourist, the tourist industry and communities (2002, p. 22). So, social equity and responsibility (Selin, 1999) or with other words social sustainability (Roberts and Simpson, 1999) could be attained through the encouragement of joint management of destinations and vitally through the integrated partnerships of multinational firms, regional planning bodies and community based cooperatives.

From that point of view, and whilst given the diffused and fragmented world order, collaboration, and coordination, due to their dynamic and flexible nature that involves multiple stakeholders(Jamal et al., 2002 ), are perceived as an epitome in the field of tourism planning and management. Both of them have been linked to the idea of sustainable development and in the context of communitybased tourism, to integration, and participation (Aas et al. 2005, p.30). Therefore as context, they have been met in various policy agendas, for instance in the Tomorrows Tourism, the British tourism policy document; [wherein it was addressed the] commitment to encourage tourism management partnerships between local authorities, tourism operators, and local communities (DCMS, 1999, Bramwell and Lane, 2000, p. 2). At this stage, it would be helpful to add the definition of collaboration as introduced initially by Gray in 1985, despite the fact that it was addressed primarily in the field of environmental planning and management, which is the pooling of appreciations and/or tangible resources (information, money, labour etc.) by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve individually (Selin and Chavez, 1995, p.190).

Later on, Jamal and Getz expanded this definition and conceptualized it in a comprehensive and truly related manner to the tourism planning path. So collaboration is the process of joint decision making among autonomous key stakeholders of an interorganisational community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the domain, and or to manage issues related to the planning and development of the domain(1995, p.188). Overall, collaboration implies a joint decision making among interdependent multiple stakeholders that share power, resources and responsibility about purposeful actions and outcomes that affect equally all the members-actors of a community (Jamal

Page

17

Chapter2: Literature Reviewand Getz, 1995; Selin and Chavez, 1995). Simplistically, collaboration is distinctive from other types of participation in policy making, as it involves a face to face dialogue that implies both mutual learning and shared decision making, although some of them might not possibly occur in reality (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). In addition, Timothy states that apart from the face to face dialogue, the enjoyment of benefits as arisen from tourism should not be ignored, since residents [] [could] gain economically from the industry, and they [could be engaged] [] in awareness-building efforts and other forms of education(1999, p. 387).

In line with the aforementioned, Bramwell and Lane (2000) summarised in their paper some key points that placed collaboration and partnerships at the forefront in tourism development and planning field. Mainly, they drew the argument against the oligopolisticaly made tourism policy decisions from few actors, known as local, economic, and political elites (Andriotis, 2006). Consequently, they supported the broadly based ownership of decisions around a domain that will result democratic empowerment, operational advantages and robust tourism products (Jamal and Getz, 1995; Timothy, 1999, Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Hence, it seems that when the apparatus refines processes for joint decision-making (Jamal and Getz, 1995, p.192) via a coherent and socio-politically inclusive [way] (Roberts and Simpson, 1999, p. 315) and brings together, in the name of development, key interest groups resources, such as expertise, experience, information, and capital, then inevitably destinations could gain a viable competitive advantage (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Usually that could be done through highly structured [] [and] legally binding agreements, [otherwise] [] through unstructured verbal agreements [] [among participants] (Selin and Chavez, 1995, p. 845).

Nevertheless, Jamal and Getz (1995) and Reed (1997) acknowledged some essential pre-conditions for the facilitation of collaboration and partnership at community level, where stakeholders ought to believe that they are interdependent in planning [and managing domains], that they will be mutually benefited from collaboration, that decisions will be implemented, that the key groups will be involved and that the

Page

18

Chapter2: Literature Reviewappointed convener is legitimate with expertise resources and authority(Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005, p. 717-8; Roberts and Simpson, 1999). These preconditions could also signify directly and indirectly the emergence of a central actor, for instance Destination Management Organisation (DMO) that aimed to contribute to the collaboration of all the key interest groups (ibid). Meanwhile, although collaborative planning meant to be unproblematic and undimensional (Bramwell, 2006), in reality though it is often characterised by conflict and messy decision-making that stiffens its implementation, due to the existence of multiple and varied organisations with various vesting interests; therefore it is critical to identify and legitimate the right mix of stakeholders or paraphrased the optimum balance of interests among competing sectors especially in emerging tourism destinations (Reed, 1997; Amoah and Baum, 1997). Nonetheless, the identification and legitimization of committed stakeholders rests foremost on their skills capacity, their willingness to contribute, their legitimacy and urgency of actions but also on their economic and political power (Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). In the forthcoming sections, this paper will elaborate more on the dynamic facet of multi-actor interactions, where usually significant power differentials and uneven resource and information exchange occur among stakeholders (Dredge, 2006). Besides, those previously mentioned pre-conditions do not proclaim anything else, apart from being a seedbed for the collaboration and partnership to flourish. Nevertheless, Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini moved this issue a step further via their case study research about Cusco in Peru, where they presented four different indicatorsrequirements about the nature of collaboration (2002). Initially, they referred vitally to the presence of a shared vision among stakeholders about tourism development that builds inevitably the spirit of a common aim through consensus making towards a tourism issue (ibid). Then, they examined the collaboration and coordination of multiple actors either between the public and private sector, or the collaboration solely within the public sector (ibid). They admitted though that this evaluation was a difficult task, therefore they bore in mind Mandell and Agranoffs continuum of collaborative efforts that ranges from loose linkages and coalitions to more lasting structural

Page

19

Chapter2: Literature Reviewarrangements(1999, p.5). Also Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini considered the input from the tourism industry and from other interest groups in tourism planning (2002, p.85), where the joint formulation of aims and objectives is deemed vital (Healey, 1998).

Finally, they identified constraints and facilitators of collaboration, as expressed by the private and the public sector (Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). In particular, the public sector identified (1) cultural barriers[] (e.g. Cusco has a conservative society that does not easily welcome change), (2) lack of shared vision[] of tourism development, (3) centralisation and limited decision-making power [] (e.g. at the regional level, where people feel they do not have the power to effectively manage their decisions [] [as the main goal is] to achieve the predetermined government objectives), (4) lack of trained people in the public sector, which hinders the possibility of undertaking joint decision-making processes, (5) limited budget of regional and local public institutions, and (6) lack of clearly defined roles, due to the presence of multiple public agencies in the tourism sector with overlapping duties and responsibilities(ibid, p. 86-7). From another spectrum, the private sector identified (1) absence of a long-term strategy towards joint decision-making processes[], (2) short-term objectives due to the changes of public officials as a consequence of elections or changes of the heads at national and regional levels[], (3) poor information about tourism policies from the government[], (4) slow decision-making processes and implementation of

decisions[], (5) multiplicity of public agencies with tourism-related functions, which means that too many organisations are involved in the decision-making process, and (6) lack of an organisation to lead and articulate collaborative planning efforts(ibid, p. 87).

In the meantime, it would be promiscuous to conceive those preconditions and indicators as being de facto. For that reason, the writer chose to draw a more reliable picture of the collaborative policy making processes through the holistic presentation of conceptualized frameworks that will enhance consequentially the understanding of the basic rationale and applicability of collaboration planning. For instance, Bramwell and Sharman introduced in 1999 a framework that measures the extent of collaborative process in local tourism policy and seeks to verify whether it is inclusionary, reduces

Page

20

Chapter2: Literature Reviewpower imbalances between actors and involves consensus building and collective learning(Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). Thereby, in the name of this current framework it seems that Bramwell and Sharman borrowed intentionally the conceptual roots of interorganisational collaboration, the communicative approaches, and citizen participation, where they presented three sets of issues about collaborative planning, the scope of collaboration, the intensity of collaboration, and the degree to which consensus emerges(1999). In terms of the scope, the key issue that arises is the extent to which the range of participating stakeholders is representative of all relevant stakeholders (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999, p. 395), which could prove either a representative balance of stakeholders or a dominance of local elites (ibid). Meanwhile, the intensity of collaboration depends on various factors, such as direct interaction and disseminating information among stakeholders, open and trustworthy dialogue among stakeholders, and reciprocal learning and respect of set arguments and interests (ibid). Further, they came up with the third issue, due to the unquestionable rise of interestgroup pluralism, [as well as] the greater recognition of stakeholder interdependence, conflicts and value differences (Jamal et al., 2002, p. 164). Therefore, researchers could ask whether there is willingness to implement policies, or some sort of acceptance that minorities will inevitably disagree with planning and development intentions, or generally whether exists consensus among stakeholders about issues, policies, purposes of policies and how the consequences of policies are assessed and reviewed(Bramwell and Sharman, 1999, p.399). Overall, they applied this framework in the Hope Valley study, where they ended up to the conclusion that in some cases collaboration was partially inclusionary but also they recognised that unequal power relations [still] remained among stakeholders with the distribution of power weighted towards the authorities rather than the residents(ibid, p. 412).

Another three staged framework, as originated from Gray and McCann in 1983, has been presented, in an enriched and advanced context by Jamal and Getz, through which tourism collaborative arrangements develop (Bramwell and Lane, 2000, p. 10). So, the first stage consists of problem-setting (identifying key stakeholders and issues), and is followed by the second stage of direction-setting (identifying and sharing future

Page

21

Chapter2: Literature Reviewcollaborative interpretations; appreciating a sense of common purpose) (Jamal and Getz, 1995, p. 189). The third stage is implementation that puts policy into practice, monitors its progress and seeks to meet the objectives of collaborative decisions (ibid). Nevertheless, Gray noted that these stages are not necessarily separate and distinctive, where in some cases overlap of actions and phases could occur (1996; Bramwell and Lane, 2000). In the same year, Selin and Chavez represented an evolutionary model based on an empirical study of three tourism partnerships [and] a review of existing tourism partnership case studies [], [] [where it] suggests that tourism partnerships begin in a context of environmental forces and evolve, sequentially through problemsetting, direction setting and structuring phases (1995, p. 844), which recognise the fragile and dynamic nature of collective actions. This later model differs from the previous one, since it contains other two extra added phases, the antecedents at the beginning, i.e. initial circumstances, and the outcome stage at the end, i.e. impacts on the domain (Look at Figure: 2.3)(Selin and Chavez, 1995).

Antecedents -Crisis -Broker -Mandate -Common vision -Existing networks -Leadership -Incentives

Problem setting --Recognise interdependence -Consensus on legitimate -Common problem definition -Perceived benefits to stakeholders -Perceived salience to

Direction Setting -Establish goals -Set ground rules -Joint information search -Explore options -Organise subgroups

Structuring -Formalizing relationships -Roles assigned -Tasks elaborated -Monitoring and control systems designed

Outcomes -Programs -Impacts -Benefits derived

Figure 2.3: An evolutionary model of tourism partnerships (Selin and Chavez, 1995, p.848)

Page

22

Chapter2: Literature ReviewFurthermore, part of this holistic evaluation of collaboration could be also perceived the normative framework of Timothy (1998). This framework assumes and recognises the need for different levels of cooperation, at least in the regional tourism development, since tourism is viewed as an interrelated system (i.e. transportation, accommodation, promotion, attractions, information and so on)(ibid). So, four different types of simultaneous cooperation need to exist (Look at Figure 2.4), in order to implement successful integrative tourism development. These are cooperation between government agencies, cooperation between levels of administration, cooperation between same level polities and private-and public sector cooperation (Timothy, 1998, p.54). These forms of cooperation could secure smooth, coherent, equitable and efficient operations that minimise conflicts, costs and degree of redundancy in the implementation of national and regional policies (Timothy, 1998). Interestingly, Hall opined in 1994 that coordination is necessary both within and between the different levels of government, in order to avoid duplication in the various government tourism bodies and the private sector and to develop effective tourism strategies (ibid, p. 55). On top of that, Timothy stated later on that partnerships between the same-level polities are important, particularly when natural and cultural resources lie across political boundaries, as they can prevent the over-utilisation or under-utilisation of resources and eliminate some of the apparent economic, social, and environmental imbalances(1999, p.184)

Page

23

Chapter2: Literature ReviewCooperative Tourism Planning

Cooperation between government agencies

Cooperation between levels of administration

Cooperation between same levels polities

Private-and public-sector cooperation

Figure 2.4: The four types of cooperation necessary for the development ofsuccessful integrative tourism

From this debate, apart from the types of collaboration, also the nature of collaboration should not be ignored. Hence, the writer brings forward the already mentioned Mandells continuum of collaboration and partnerships, as a mechanism that involves a whole range of relationships and is comprised by a sum of stages where collaborative efforts evolve and progress over time (Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). Thus, Mandell described partnerships in his paper, as the linkages or interactive contacts between two or more organisations, intermittent co-ordinations or mutual

adjustment of the policies and procedures of two or more actors to accomplish some objective, ad hoc or temporary task-force activity among actors to accomplish a purpose or purposes, permanent and/or regular coordination between two or more actors through a formal arrangement (e.g. a council) to engage in limited activity to achieve a purpose or purposes, a coalition where interdependent and strategic actions are taken, but where purposes are narrow in scope and all actions occur within the participants themselves or involve the sequential or simultaneous activity of the participants, a collective network structure where there is a broad mission and joint and strategically interdependent action(1999, p.6).

2.4.2 Community based planning

Page

24

Chapter2: Literature Review

Aside from collaboration planning, integrative planning has been also emerged, that shares almost the same collective values with the former. In reality, integrative planning supports the integration of tourism into the overall plan and total development strategy of a country or region developed at higher levels (Timothy, 1998, p. 52). Indeed, local governments attempt often to integrate themselves in the wider development context, with the aim to establish greater market presence through developing and strengthening regional relations and by taking part in programmes, as induced by the top hierarchical government forces (Dredge, 2001). Certainly, despite the commonalities of collaboration and integrative planning, it has been critically stated that it is impossible to consider all elements in the planning process [] at once; [therefore] the introduction of alternative approaches, such as community based planning has been a response to its recognised deficiencies.

For instance, bear in mind that rural tourism does not develop in a vacuum [rather] it is embedded in a given social, political and historical context (Verbole, 2000, p. 479), where the needs, demands, and values of [various] actors [could affect] the ecological, economic, and sociocultural resources of destinations (Jamal and Getz, 1999, p.290). Such collective planning aids the representation of various public interests and foremost the public good in particular, through community and the wider stakeholder involvement, as being part of the bottom- up developmental approach (Reed, 1997). At the start though of this discussion about community based planning and with the overwhelming goal of preciseness, the writer ought to clarify the vague community term. From the tourism perspective, community can be defined in terms of a geographical area [] as citizens within a given locality, [otherwise it could be defined] as a group of people with shared interests and origins, [such as a local] business sector (Aas et al, 2005, p. 30).

Consequently, community based planning is a mechanism addressed to harness citizen or [communitys] opinion about development issues [] [in emergent tourism settings] [] and is subject to the expression of power relations in different policy

Page

25

Chapter2: Literature Reviewarenas (Reed, 1997, p. 573). Respectively, this is the key distinctive point of community based planning, in comparison with the rest of planning forms, because it accepts community or locals as being part of the tourist product and recognises that if development planning eschews from local aspirations and goodwill then the viability and success of the tourism destination is inevitably in danger (Murphy, 1988). Prima facie this planning form indicates a reversion of the norm that local people and communities [used to be] [] the objects of the development but not the subject of it (Mitchel and Reid, 2001, p.114). With no doubt, this statement implies locals empowerment in terms of tourism planning, as well as a decentralized, active, and equitable role of locals in the decision making process, where planned intervention cannot be necessarily top-down or externally organised(Verbole, 2000, p. 480). This position though does not exclude from the planning process government authorities nor external bodies, rather it proclaims thriving democratic cooperative and collaborative approaches in planning that could take place, for instance in emergent tourism settings, which are characterised by the presence of numerous organisations and lack of a well defined inter-organisational process (Jamal and Getz, 1995, p. 196).

The writer may also say that all those authors seem likely to agree with what Murphy noted in the middle of 80s that if tourism is to become successful and self perpetuating industry many have advocated, it needs to be planned and managed as a renewable resource industry based on local capacities and community decision making (1985, as cited by Hall, 2000, p. 33). Fundamentally, this quote raises simultaneously issues about the community based planning and the sustainable tourism development, which contradict with the conventional ethos of tourism and highlight the socially and ecologically benignity of tourism activities that aimed to avoid stakeholder conflicts, balance tourism development growth, secure the long term viability of resources and tourists satisfaction (Holden, 2000). So, in order to achieve sustainable rural development it is prompt to secure the full supportiveness of rural community; however who really decides, who participates and at the end who benefits and who loses in rural tourism development (Verbole, 2000, p.480) are crucial raised questions, as communities are with no doubt heterogeneous entities. Under these circumstances, it

Page

26

Chapter2: Literature Reviewseems that tourism developers ought to adopt the notion of a win- win situation, in terms of distributing equally costs and benefits for the destination itself, its residents, its stakeholders and the final recipients its tourists (Mitchel and Reid, 2001).

Here, the writer takes the initiative to match in some way the community based planning with the leftist approach as originated from the third ways bipolar view of tourism planning approaches (Burns, 2004) (Look at the Table 2.2). Certainly, those two approaches seem likely to fit, since the leftist approach relies on local people and knowledge that used to drive tourism goals. The leftist approach assumes a community with a high level of tourism control and management; a broad based and open-democratic structure; an equitable decision making process; a high degree of individual participation in decision making and a high amount of local ownership(Mitchel, 1998, as cited by Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p.2). Last but not least Timothy (1999) has introduced in his article (Look at Figure 2.5) a simplistic normative model of participatory tourism planning, which embraces the involvement of community in decision making process, the distribution of tourism benefits to the locals and most importantly the education of the locality. Noteworthy, the latter one according to Timothy might work as a mean, which could optimize the great potential of tourism towards the strengthened community at the professional, vocational and entrepreneurial levels (1999).

. Figure 2.5: A Normative Model of Participatory Tourism Planning (as obtained from Timothy, 1998, p.372).

The leftist Development First

The rightist Tourism First"

Page

27

Chapter2: Literature ReviewSustainable human development Tourism-as-system Tourism-as-culture Modern World System Periphery Underdevelopment Economic enlargement Tourism-as-industry Tourism-as-consumerism Globalization Core Modernization

Aiming for an independent, differentiated Aiming to maximize market spread through destination with minimal dependency on the familiarity of the product, undifferentiated, core. Focus on sustainable human homogenized product development on core

development goals as defined by local with a focus on tourism goals set by outside people and local knowledge. The key planners and the international tourism question driving development is what can industry tourism give us without harming us? Holistic Economistic

Table 2.2: Bipolar View of tourism planning approaches Burns 2004 (as obtained from Jamal and Lagiewski, 2000, p.1). In flow with the aforementioned and despite the assertion of Murphy (1988) about the importance of involving primarily the community, as key stakeholders in the tourism destination development process (Hall, 1999), tourism industry seemed, so far, to form partnerships with just a few community based groups and not with the wider public community, which reflects more or less tokenism rather than real power of community members (Arnstein, 1969) (ibid). This situation portrays oversimplified and in first hand the difficulty to implement community based planning in absolute terms. That arises from the lack of political will and resistance of government authorities. Often, they used to perceive antagonistically communitys empowerement and that position could be interpreted from their side, as a loss of power and control over the planning and development process (Hall, 2000).

Page

28

Chapter2: Literature ReviewOn top of that, significant pressures could be exerted from the private interests towards authorities to avoid such kind of partnerships, since it is transparent, in their eyes at least, that community involvement might cause meaningless and costly postponement of the implementation of the planning process (ibid). Nevertheless, community based planning is not impeded solely by the public authorities and the private interests, but also by the community itself. Interestingly, Hall has presented seven constraints of public participation in tourism planning as identified by Jenkins in 1993 the public generally has difficulty in comprehending complex and technical planning issues; the public is not always aware of or understands the decision making process; the difficulty in attaining and maintaining representativeness in the decision making process; the apathy of citizens; the increased costs in terms of staff and money; the prolonging of the decision making process; and adverse effects on the efficiency of decision making (2000, p. 32).

In every case, the over-centralized public administration structure, the widespread patronclient relationship, the elitist approach to democracy and development, and the unequal income distribution (Tosun, 2006, p. 503) reflect usually the dominant socioeconomic conditions of a given country, which seem to constrain the ad hoc equal community participation in policy and planning of a given destination, region or a country. This situation contradicts with the assumption that the planning and policy process is pluralistic and that all people have the same access to economic and political resources (Reed, 1997). Therein, lies the challenge of empowering and developing the communitys skills with the aim to bring locals at the forefront and enhance their capabilities to combat with all the granted adversities arisen from the status quo and then to make well informed decisions. Such as, the Indonesian Ecotourism Network that used to work as a mechanism which raises awareness and supplies training material about community participation in ecotourism and a booklet on how to become a well skilled eco-guider (Scheyvens, 2002).

This author follows the same path with Pearce (1995) and Timothy (1999), where they opined that education of host communities is vital for the socially sustainable tourism development and evolves and changes over the different phases of development

Page

29

Chapter2: Literature Reviewprocess. For instance, during the pre-development phase NGOs, local authorities or private investors could involve communities in a market survey, which meant to verify whether or not a proposed tourism venture will actually be viable, in the form in which it is planned (Scheyvens, 2002, p. 214). Apart from market research, locals might be also engaged with evaluating and studying other tourism sites, with the aim to collect dispersed information about benefits and pitfalls of particular forms of tourism and planning (Scheyvens, 2002). Interestingly, Mitchel and Reid in 2001, along with their analysis of community integration and the dynamic triangle of public participation (awareness, unity and power), characterised additively the above method as the conscientisation of people (p.136).

Thus, when developers or local authorities build community capacity through education and rise of self awareness, then community members could undertake projects with independence and skill (Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p. 2), or they could simply participate or negotiate collaboration (Aas, 2005, p. 43), as well as they could monitor tourism development and lobby or protest for change (Scheyvens, 2002, p. 230), when tourism reaches social and environmental degradation levels. Indeed, Sadan and Churchman argued that community planning is a purposeful activity designed [] by any professional [i.e.] town planner, rural developer, community organiser,[or] educator, [which aimed] to build a new community or help strengthen an existing one, either in social and or physical terms (1997, p.4). Apart from education as such, there are many other techniques directed to involve and inform stakeholders in tourism planning the drop in centres, the nominal group technique sessions, citizen surveys, focus groups, citizen task forces and consensus building meetings(Yuksel and Bramwell,1999, p.351). Aggregately, all the aforementioned imply that community based tourism planning is a process underpinned mainly by the principle of equity and in turn empowers intrinsically the community (Bahaire and Elliott-White, 1999).

Meanwhile, community participation in policy-making and planning involves changing citizen power relationships with other stakeholders, such as state and reflects existing structures of the society, within which tourism planning and development takes

Page

30

Chapter2: Literature Reviewplace (Bahaire and Elliott-White, 1999). Much earlier, Arnstein in his attempt to answer the ambiguous question of what is citizen participation, he described it as the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes to be deliberately included in the future; it is the strategy by which the have- nots join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, programmes are operated and benefits [] are parceled out (1969, p. 216). Nevertheless, not all the forms of citizen participation can contribute to the same realisation of benefits as arisen from tourism, since community participation ranges from manipulative participation to citizen power(Tosun, 2006). In addition, Arnstein (1969), Pretty (1995) and Tosun (2006) have employed the ladder metaphor that encapsulates different forms of participation at different levels (Look at Figure 2.6). This metaphor retains intuitive appeal and alerts us to degrees of participation and what is offered by planning authorities or demanded by citizens (Bahaire and Elliott-White, 1999, pp. 2467). So the following figure summarises different interrelated typologies of community participation, and covers a wide spectrum of it, ranging from the passive to the more interactive, note though that only the most current typology has been exclusively designed for the tourism domain (Tosun, 2006).

Figure 2.6 Normative typologies of community participation (as obtained from Tosun, 2006, p. 494).

Page

31

Chapter2: Literature ReviewIn brief, Arnstein (1971) has presented in his model eight different levels of citizen participation, which have been classified into three different categories the lowest category refers to the non- participation or with other words the manipulative participation, the middle one refers to the degrees of citizen tokenism, and finally the highest one which refers to the degrees of citizen power (Tosun, 2006). In line with the Arnsteins model, Pretty (1995) has described seven levels of community participation ranging from manipulative participation to self-mobilization (ibid). Later on, Tosun, in response to the aforementioned, ended up into three new main types of community participation the spontaneous, the coercive and the induced community participation (ibid). This model has been conceptualized from the basis that participation in tourism varies considerably, because of the presence of various interest groups with different levels of power, objectives and expectations, which in turn influence the attitudes and predisposition towards community participation. In fact, when Tosun applied this model to the rgp and Ankara locations, he concluded that representatives of private sector and respondents from central bodies are opposed to community participation in any form, and that local agencies support community participation at general consultative level but oppose community participation at a decisive level(2006, p. 501). So, in many cases, the processes of planning, which might involve communities are ongoing processes of adaptation, where networks and coalitions are formed with the aim to shape other commences (Ryan, 2002).

Lastly, even if resident responsive [or with other words community based] tourism (CBT) is the watchword for tomorrow (Ritchie, 1999, p. 206), Blackstock does not hesitate to criticize heavily the community based tourism as being unrealistic and nave (2005, p.45). The author denotes that although CBT uses the discource of community development, [in reality it] sidesteps community developments social traditions of social justice and local empowerement,[] [since it] focuses on maximizing the economic stability of the industry(ibid). This comes from the observation that usually tourism development has been legitimized as being locally controlled and responsive to communitys interests, although in reality just a few communities are capable to protect their visions and interests from global, national and regional monetary

Page

32

Chapter2: Literature Reviewinterests (Blackstock, 2005). In conclusion, the writer comments that it is up to audiences willingness to explore thoroughly the vast concept of CBT, where there is a plethora of articles and lots of space for further divergent interpretations and conclusions.

2.5 Actors, Power and, Policy Networks.

As it was mentioned earlier tourism planning is maturing as a discipline, where new approaches emerge that place emphasis on the coordination of private and public sector organisations[] and bring public participation right into the core of the decision making process(Buhalis and Costa, 2006,p.168). Additionally, Hall drew in his paper, the ideal collaborative approach towards tourism planning that involves a wide set of stakeholders excluding the corporatist perspective, which will meet the public interest (1999). In reality, those powerful groups, who share common discourses about developments and politics form coalitions with the aim to dominate the decision making process (Bramwell, 2006). Accordingly, coordination of the tourism policy planning process and its involved parties hardly succeeds, since it is loosely arranged and foremost it is a political activity (Hall, 1999). Nevertheless, it is imperative a negotiated order to prevail amongst multiple stakeholders in the undoubtedly complex planning systems- the destinations (Jamal and Getz, 1995), despite the apparent conflicts derived from local power structures that could possibly hamper the effectiveness of the planning effort, as a whole(Reed, 1999). Hence, those who are engaged in the debate about collaboration and tourism planning issues within a destination, should not be silent about the dimensions of power (Jamal and Getz, 1995), rather they should take an actor- oriented perspective that recognises rural tourism development and policy making as a dynamic, ongoing process that is shaped and reshaped by social actors (Verbole, 2000, p. 485).

At this stage, should be re-stated that tourism development and planning is not immune from the influence of interest groups-actors who seek to serve their own goals (Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Hall opined in 1999 that business groups tend to dominate the policy process through the exclusion and detriment of other interests [] [without substituting] the formal powers of governments (p.281). To do so, they need to exert

Page

33

Chapter2: Literature Reviewtheir power over the weaker actors. Reed defines power as the ability to impose ones will or advance ones own interest (1997, p. 567). Indeed, individuals or groups based on their source of power (e.g. monetary resources) originated from formal or informal structures tend to communicate with others through media about their goals and objectives and thereby they persuade or coerce them to implement their own will or courses of action (Marzano and Scott, 2005). Therein, Freire notes that the greater the political immaturity of these people [] the more easily they can be manipulated by the dominant elites who do not wish to lose their power (1970, as cited by Mitchel and Reid, 2001, p.118). However, sooner or later power imbalances could inhibit the success of any decisions and that of collaborative efforts (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Nonetheless, Reed states that power [] could be managed and balanced [adequately by] [] identifying a suitable [and representative] convener at an early stage in the collaborative planning process (1997, p. 569).

Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that philosophically wise collaborative planning can be traced back in Habermas propositions of communicative action that conveys consensus among actors, who share common understanding and make trade-offs about alternative views(Dredge, 2006). Nevertheless, Flyvberg criticized communicative action as an oversimplified perspective that ignores Foucaults rationale about omnipresence power in all human affairs (ibid; Cheong and Miller, 2000). For instance, Foucault stated that power exists between every point of a social body, between a man a woman, between the members of a family, between a master and a pupil (1980d, Cheong and Miller, 2000, p. 375). In present time, Bramwell and Meyer state that power emerges from social relationships, such as actors negotiations about tourism development, and preserves from the distribution of resources, reputation and competition (2007). However, Foucault holds no idealized vision of democracy [], [since issues such as] negotiation and compromise [are often bypassed] and actors could be included or excluded [from the public debate] as part of the everyday politics, where speech is never completely open or free of influence and people dont always act for the rational good(Dredge, 2006, p.569). Therefore, there will always be questionable, whether the involved stakeholders, in the collaborative planning and development, are

Page

34

Chapter2: Literature Reviewrepresentative of all those, who will be inevitably affected by the emergent tourism settings or projects (Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell, 1999).

Thereinafter, those who support the need for an increased collaboration in the planning process share the basic premise of involving all people affected by tourism development (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Such argument is highly interrelated with the principles of stakeholder theory that could promote collaboration (Sauter and Leisen, 1999). Freeman suggested that an organisation, metaphorically the destination tourism development, is characterised by relationships with a series of stakeholder groups and individuals (Look at Figure 2.7), who can affect or could be affected by the achievement of certain objectives or goals of the destination (ibid). From a managerial perspective, the stakeholder theory posits that the various groups can and should have a direct influence on managerial decision-making (ibid, p.313), with a prerequisite to pay attention to the genuine interest of stakeholders that exceeds in many cases the tourism scope. In order collaboration to be successful, there is a need to identify shared values (Reed, 1997) among them that will support the adoption of a consensus model in the early stages of collaborative development, where the perspective of the most polarized stakeholders will be considered (Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell, 1999).

. Figure 2.7 Tourism Stakeholder Map, (Freeman, 1984 as obtained from Sauter and Leisen, 1999, p.315)

Page

35

Chapter2: Literature ReviewOn top of that, Long suggested in 2001 that when social actors pursue projects they [tend to] form directly or indirectly networks with others [] based on similar interests, values, or strategies and on struggles over their differing perspectives (Bramwell, 2006, p. 960). Occasionally that occurs also in the public policy domain e.g. the tourism related policy networks, where boundaries among involved parties blur and in a political frame, discussion and negotiation take place about policy issues (Bramwell and Meyer, 2007).Generally speaking, there was the belief that networks, the supposedly extending format of collaborative planning, result through the connection of multiple stakeholder relations, a much more powerful outcome against the confronting relationships, than the random individual efforts (Dredge, 2006; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007, Andriof et al., 2002). So, simplistically a network is a specific type of relations linking a set of persons, objects or events (Knoke and Kuklinski, 1983, as cited by Tinsley and Lynch, 2001, p. 368). Crucially, these networked relationships could be sustained primarily with the presence of social capital. Andriof et al. characterised the social capital as being the glue of connectivity (2002, p. 27) among human relations, where trust dominates among them, after focusing on areas of agreement, common visioning and understanding (Jamal et al., 2002). Nevertheless, this does not mean that in development areas, blockers of development will disappear magically. Therefore, in this networked era, stakeholder mapping could be a useful management tool to plan strategies and set political priorities in terms of stakeholders (Marwick 2000, p.522). Hence, development planners could explore Figure (2.8) that could help them to facilitate stakeholder targeting and then to reposition or empower certain key stakeholders.

Page

36

Chapter2: Literature Review

Figure 2.8: Stakeholder mapping: The power/interest matrix, (Marwick 2000, p.522).

Page

37

Chapter3: Methodology

Chapter 3

This dissertation is a case study of the territory Sitia, in Crete, which will examine its tourism development and policy planning practices with an initial focus upon the non satisfactory progress of the private initiated mega-resort project of Cavo Sidero.

3.1 IntroductionGratton and Jones (2004, p. 4) define research as a systematic process of discovery and advancement of human knowledge. So, this section will identify and justify the research philosophy and strategy, the sample of people will also be identified, the data collection methods will be described and finally the limitations and ethics of the research will be presented. It would be helpful to make initially an overview of the research question and objectives of this study.

The already defined research question: whether exists any democratized and coordinated approach of tourism planning and development in Sitia that could possibly solve problems, such as conflicts and preserve Sitias social and environmental sustainability. So, the objectives of this research are:

i. Explore whether organisational and non-organisational bodies share the sense ofcommon purpose and vision.

ii. Explore how the Greek government participates in Sitias tourism developmentand evaluate its collaborative stance.

Page

37

Chapter3: Methodology iii. Understand how stakeholders perceive collaboration and community- basedplanning and investigate actors representation and involvement within the planning and development process

iv. Explore why the tourism development and planning process have not beendemocratized in this emergent tourism settings and how it could be done.

v. Understand how consensus making is affected by power differentials.

3.2 Research designAs it was mentioned earlier, the writer, in this present study, will undertake a case study research. That involves the intensive study of a specific case (Gratton and Jones, 2004, p. 4), an organisation, a destination and so on. In more details, case study research has been defined by Robson as a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence (1993, as cited from the Research Observatory). In connection to this, the writer shall focus on Sitia and will examine thoroughly the nature of planning and development activities, whilst seeking to answer how and why questions (Rowley, 2002). Case study research is useful, when a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 1994, p. 9).

Furthermore, the almost a decade postponement of the projects completion in Cavo Sidero led to the exploration of issues that surround the existing national or local policy planning approaches, which advocates apparently the adoption of an exploratory research path. The following table (Look at Table 3.1) summarises the main characteristics of exploratory research. Herein, the readers of this study should consider that the majority of exploratory research has its primary objective of the provision of insights into and comprehension of the problem situation confronting the researcher (Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p.76). Sitias tourism market could be still characterised as embryonic, that contradicts heavily with the dominant trends across the rest almost Page 38

Chapter3: Methodologysaturated island (Andriotis, 2001). Therefore, the results of this research might provide some insights upon the contemporary phenomenon and could bring forward some new valuable perspectives.

Exploratory nature of ResearchTo provide insights and understanding of the

Objective

nature of phenomena.

Information needed may loosely defined Research process is flexible, unstructured

Characteristics

and may evolve. Samples are small Data analysis can be qualitative or

quantitative Expert surveys Pilot surveys Secondary data

Methods

Qualitative methods Unstructured Observations Quantitative methods exploratory multivariate

Table 3.1 Exploratory research, (as obtained from Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p. 76).

The writer, in his attempt to gain sufficient and valid insights from the research, will seek to explore the most powerful actors about values, beliefs, attitudes and different perspectives within the destination system. In the case studies, the commonly employed data collection methods are questionnaires, interviews, observation, and documentary analysis (Saunders et al. 2003, p. 93). Nevertheless, in this paper, observations and Page 39

Chapter3: Methodologyquestionnaires, due to time constraints have been excluded. In a manner of speaking, this study is based upon primary and secondary data, where the writer follows the qualitative research stream. In particular, it could be said that this tourism related paper is an descriptive phenomenological and in some cases interpretive study which distances itself from the the bonds of realism and positivism (Bate, 1997) and recognises the inherent complexity and multiculturality, the paradox and contradiction, the competing values and contests of meaning that characterise the [] (Gurney and Humphreys, 2006, p. 86) multi-stakeholder environments with apparent power differentials. This means that

qualitative research is an approach that leads towards the so called verstehen notion, where it describes and explains how people live and articulate the socially constructed reality (Johnson et al., 2006).

3.3 Qualitative researchAccording to Denzin and Lincoln qualitative research is defined as, multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter (1994 as cited by Riley and Love, 2000, p.168). This means that qualitative researchers study phenomena in the environments in which they naturally occur and uses social actors meanings to understand the phenomena (Gephart, 2004, p. 455). Hence, the understanding of a phenomenon involves not solely researchers interpretation rather it should consider actors interpretation of their own situation that indicates more or less the double hermeneutic notion of interpretivism (Giddens, 1984, as cited by

Nandhakumar&Jones, 1997). Overall, qualitative research seeks to humanize problems and gaining an emic or insiders perspective (Phillimore and Goods