net work analysis of a tourism destination

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    1/18

    International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality ManagementEmerald Article: A network perspective on managing stakeholders forsustainable urban tourism

    Seldjan Timur, Donald Getz

    Article information:

    To cite this document: Seldjan Timur, Donald Getz, (2008),"A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban

    ourism", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 445 - 461

    Permanent link to this document:

    ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110810873543

    Downloaded on: 17-12-2012

    References: This document contains references to 45 other documents

    Citations: This document has been cited by 15 other documents

    To copy this document: [email protected]

    This document has been downloaded 3618 times since 2008. *

    Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

    eldjan Timur, Donald Getz, (2008),"A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism", International

    ournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 445 - 461

    ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110810873543

    eldjan Timur, Donald Getz, (2008),"A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism", International

    ournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 445 - 461

    ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110810873543

    eldjan Timur, Donald Getz, (2008),"A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism", International

    ournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 445 - 461

    ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110810873543

    Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

    For Authors:

    f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

    nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

    www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

    About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

    With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

    usiness, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    2/18

    A network perspective onmanaging stakeholders forsustainable urban tourism

    Seldjan TimurDepartment of Business Administration, Faculty of Business and Economics,

    Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus, Turkey, and

    Donald GetzHaskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

    Abstract

    Purpose This study aims to examine the current network of inter-relationships of stakeholdersrepresenting government, the community and the tourism and hospitality industry, and theirperceptions of critical stakeholders in destination development.

    Design/methodology/approach While the network analysis enabled examination of theinterconnectedness of stakeholders, the stakeholder approach identified the critical stakeholders indestination development. These two approaches helped determine how the existing relationshipstructures of destination stakeholders might influence sustainable destination development.

    Findings The destination marketing/management organizations (DMOs) and stakeholders withaccess to or possession of critical resources have the highest centrality in urban destinations. In allthree clusters, local government and DMOs are perceived to hold the greatest legitimacy and powerover others in destination development. It is also found that there is a lack of bridges between thethree clusters of industry, government and the community.

    Research limitations/implications The study demonstrates the use of a network analysis

    methodology as a potential tool for researchers and managers in examining destination stakeholderrelationships.

    Practical implications DMOs, hotels and attractions stakeholders have the most crucial roles inachieving inter-stakeholder collaboration for sustainable destination development, particularlybecause the many and diverse industry actors trust or depend on them.

    Originality/value There are very few studies that have applied both network and stakeholderperspectives to destinations to examine the structure of inter-stakeholder relationships and thepotential influence of this relational structure on sustainable destination development.

    Keywords Stakeholder analysis, Urban areas, Tourism

    Paper type Research paper

    IntroductionThere is a large body of literature on sustainable tourism. However its application tourban settings is relatively new. The research on sustainable tourism has concentratedon natural environments and protected areas, despite the fact that most of the worldspopulation lives in urban areas and the majority of travel happens in cities (WorldTourism Organization, 1999). The market of urban tourism is rapidly expanding(Paskeleva-Shapira, 2003). The favorable market conditions tempt many city plannersto make the tourism and hospitality industry (hereinafter the industry) development animportant part of urban policy. The growth of the industry in urban destinations

    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

    www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

    Managingstakeholders

    445

    Received 5 July 2007Revised 24 August 2007

    Accepted 4 January 2008

    International Journal of

    Contemporary Hospitality

    Management

    Vol. 20 No. 4, 2008

    pp. 445-461

    q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    0959-6119

    DOI 10.1108/09596110810873543

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    3/18

    presents various challenges such as protection of environment, conservation ofheritage, preservation of social fabric and cultural values, and maintenance of a desiredquality of life for residents.

    The development of tourism that is sustainable in economic, environmental, social

    and cultural terms has been repeatedly recommended but researchers have found thatthe management and implementation of sustainable tourism (ST) requires theinvolvement of many partners, and that this collaboration between diverse stakeholdersis both complicated and difficult to achieve (Paskeleva-Shapira, 2001). Managing STrequires interactions between the public sector (i.e. government bodies such as cityplanners, transportation department, etc.), the private sector (tourism and hospitalityfirms) and the local residents. This study aims to uncover the current interrelationshipsof stakeholders representing three partners of ST development. Respondents in threecities, representing diverse stakeholders from the industry, government and thecommunity, were examined as to their existing interconnectedness.

    In the ensuing sections, stakeholder theory and the network perspective will bediscussed to provide a foundation for identifying critical stakeholders in destinationdevelopment. The network perspective helps determine whether identified criticalstakeholders have existing relationships with the other members of destinationnetworks. Having discussed the existing links among stakeholders from three clustersand identified the critical stakeholders, the study concludes by questioning whichorganization should take the lead in establishing stakeholder networks in sustainabledestination development.

    Applying stakeholder and network perspectives to destinationdevelopmentStakeholder perspectiveFreeman, who introduced stakeholder theory to strategic management defined

    stakeholder as . . .

    any group or individual who can affect or who is affected by theachievement of the organizations objectives (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). However, auniversally accepted stakeholder definition has not been constructed yet (Carroll, 1993).Mitchell et al. (1997) reviewed stakeholder concepts, and analyzed the underlyingdimensions found in the various stakeholder definitions. This review found that powerand legitimacy are the core attributes of a stakeholder identification typology. In theMitchell et al. (1997) model, stakeholder salience is positively related to the cumulativenumber of stakeholder attributes. Stakeholders who are perceived to possess oneattribute are less salient than those who possess two attributes. This finding emphasizedthat stakeholders could vary from one issue to another issue. Accordingly, criticalstakeholders that hold legitimacy and have power over others in the process ofdestination development could be different from (or same as) those involved for instance,

    in destination marketing or product development efforts. Similarly, critical stakeholderscould vary from one destination to another. Accordingly, this study identifies the criticalactors in destination development by employing stakeholder approach.

    The stakeholder framework allows a wider range of actors to be considered andblended into urban tourism policy, and therefore has significant benefits forsustainability. Many sustainable development situations, including tourismdevelopment, are characterized by a complex web of interests and trade-offsbetween interacting sets of diverse stakeholders.

    IJCHM20,4

    446

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    4/18

    Network perspectiveThree concepts are of vital importance in understanding social network analysis(SNA). Nodes, or actors, are entities, persons, organizations, or events. Links arethe relationships, of any kind, between the actors. Links have content (Cobb, 1988).

    Links may be money transfers, communications, publications sent to subscribers,friendships, exchange of resources like information, or overlapping memberships(Tichy et al., 1979). Actors can be directly or indirectly linked, joined by multiplerelationships, or be separate. Networks are the patterns formed from the combinationof all the actors and links within the system. Networks have characteristics. Forexample, networks may be dense (having many links) or sparse (having few links).Density refers to the number of connections between actors within the network. It isargued that highly dense networks result in efficient communication and enhanceddiffusion of norms across networks (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Another networkcharacteristic is centrality. Networks may have one central actor with links frommany actors directed to it, which indicates high network centrality, or a network mayhave several groups and no central actor that indicates low network centrality. Acentral position within the network indicates the amount of power obtained throughthe structure, and capacity to access information and other members (Wasserman andFaust, 1994). SNA is concerned with the structural positions (such as central, isolate,bridging) of actors. If an actor has many links to others in the system, then it hasdifferent network characteristics than an actor with fewer links within the system.

    The goal of adapting the network perspective to tourism and hospitality industrystems from the recognition that a destination is a system which consists of relationsthat are likely to influence destination stakeholders opportunities, constraints,behavior, or values. SNA is one of the tools that can be used to examine the links andthe potential influence of ties between members of destination stakeholders on manyissues including sustainable destination development. In this study actors are

    stakeholders representing government, the industry and the community which areidentified as the partners of ST development by the World Tourism Organization(WTO). The link is operationalized as having business contacts, and the content ofthe link is joint tourism programs or projects. This link is selected to examine ifstakeholders representing three clusters have established ties and meaningfulnetworks in the system.

    Centrality is one of the most popular measures used in SNA. There are variousmeasures of centrality (Freeman, 1979; Scott, 2000). Freeman (1979) operationalizedcentrality by degree, betweenness and closeness measures. Degree basedcentrality is simply the number of other actors to which the focal actor is tied(Krackhardt, 1990; Freeman, 1979). Centrality then measures an actors involvement ina network by revealing how many connections an actor has. It corresponds to being

    well connected within its local environment (Scott, 2000). It can be computed forin-degree centrality (which measures how many ties an actor receives) and out-degreecentrality (measures how many ties are made with other actors).

    Betweenness centrality measures the frequency with which an actor falls on thepaths between pairs of other actors (Freeman, 1979). Closeness centrality defines anactors ability to access independently all other members of the network (Freeman,1979). It is a score calculated by measuring the extent to which an actor can most easilyreach others through the shortest number of jumps across the network.

    Managingstakeholders

    447

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    5/18

    If an actor is connected to different members, it will have access to differentnonredundant sources of information (Krackhardt, 1990; Wasserman and Faust, 1994).Scott (2000) defined these actors as gatekeepers, as they have potential for control overothers or facilitate exchanges between less central actors. In this study, these actors are

    called bridging stakeholders as they can establish contacts between clusters.Researchers have to decide which centrality measure is the most meaningful and

    valid one for their research purposes. Freeman (1979) and others studied the empiricalperformance of centrality measures under different research scenarios (Galaskiewiczand Burt, 1991). Costenbader and Valente (2003) argued that the in-degree centralitymeasure was less affected by sampling because, although respondents dropped fromthe sample were no longer able to indicate their ties, they were still able to receive them.Therefore, the current study uses in-degree based centrality to compute the mostmeaningful centrality measure.

    Tourism and hospitality industry applicationsThe network approach has been used in leisure and recreation (Stokowski, 1990, 1994;Blackshaw and Long, 1998) and, tourism and hospitality (Cobb, 1988; Park, 1997;Money, 2000; Pavlovich, 2001, 2003; Tyler and Dinan, 2001; Pforr, 2002, 2006) and inevent management (Larson, 2002; Stokes, 2004, Mackellar, 2006) to examineinteractions among actors, identify the actors in the network, or to examine thefunction of the network as a whole.

    Stakeholder theory has been applied as a planning and management tool (Sautterand Leisen, 1999; Yuksel et al., 1999; Getz and Jamal, 1994; Robson and Robson, 1996;Walsh et al., 2001; Jamal and Getz, 2000; Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell, 1999), andfor stakeholder identification (Hardy and Beeton, 2001; Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005).Recently, Sheehan and Ritchie applied stakeholder theory to assess destinationstakeholders from the perspective of DMOs and concluded that if these agencies were

    to be re-conceptualized as destination management organizations it would require theDMO to effectively build and manage stakeholder relationships. They specificallycalled for a network approach to create a picture of the connectedness of destinationstakeholders and to test the hypothesis that the DMO is the most central and mostconnected actor in the network . . . (Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005, p. 731).

    Accordingly, this study first examines the current interconnectedness of diverseurban tourism stakeholders through a network lens and then analyzes theconnectedness of legitimate and powerful stakeholders of the industry in theestablished destination networks.

    Research design and methodologyA two-stage research design was employed. The first aimed to obtain detailed input

    from selected interviews regarding critical stakeholders of urban destinations in thecontext of ST and the challenges of ST in the context of urban destinations. Theinterview process started with the key stakeholders such as the local DMOs, some hotelmanagers, major tourist attractions managers, conference and convention centersmanagers and government agents responsible for tourism and/or economicdevelopment. During the interviews, a snowball technique was employed to identifyother stakeholders who were considered to have relevant characteristics and valuableinformation regarding the purposes of the study. This helped identify a more complete

    IJCHM20,4

    448

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    6/18

    web of legitimate stakeholders. The respondents not only included key stakeholders,but also their referrals. When the saturation point was reached, the interviewingprocess was finalized. In total, 38 interviews were conducted in three cities with diversestakeholders representing the industry, government and the community.

    In the second stage, a structured questionnaire was developed to collect comparableand quantifiable data in three cities. The self-completion, mail-back questionnaire wasdeveloped to examine the existing stakeholder relationships and identify the criticaldestination development stakeholders.

    Network analysis principles and methods were utilized to construct a destinationnetwork structure. Questions and analysis were adapted from Galaskiewicz (1979),Tichy et al. (1979), Galaskiewicz and Shatin (1981), Knoke and Wood (1981), Cobb (1988),Krackhardt (1990), Galaskiewicz and Burt (1991), and John and Cole (1998). To measurecurrent stakeholder interconnectedness, an existing link was queried. The standardizedstakeholder list was presented to respondents and they were asked to check off thosewith which their organization had joint programs or projects in the last 12 months.

    From responses to this question an adjacency matrix was constructed thatrepresents the relationships among destination stakeholders in the destination networkin each city. Specifically, by coding the presence (or absence) of a formal businesscontact, a matrix where the stakeholders are both rows and columns was created. A 1stands for the presence of a formal business contact between stakeholder i andstakeholder j, and a 0 indicates the lack of relationship. Constructed adjacencymatrices were entered into UCINET VI to compute the network measures and maprelations between the network members.

    To identify the salient destination stakeholders that were particularly important fordestination development, the two major attributes of stakeholders, power andlegitimacy, were examined (Mitchell et al., 1997). The respondents indicated the criticalstakeholders on the standard list.

    Sample citiesThree urban tourism destinations, Calgary (Alberta, Canada), Victoria (BritishColumbia, Canada) and San Francisco (California, USA) were chosen for empiricalinvestigation. While a study of a single destination network would be instructive, acomparison of three cities with varying tourism infrastructure and different planningapproaches yields more understanding.

    The City of Calgary was the logical starting point, being the home city, but was alsonotable in having a substantial tourism industry yet possessing no tourism policy orplan. However, the city has substantial environmental programs developed by theenvironmental management and community strategies departments at the City Hall.The City of Victoria was selected because the annual report of the Tourism Victoria

    indicated that the principles of sustainability were being applied in this urban area.The primary reason in choosing San Francisco was the Sustainability Plan for theCity of San Francisco that had been developed by the municipal government. In 1996,over 350 San Franciscans, community activists and people representing many citygovernment agencies, over 100 businesses, and academia gathered in working groupsand drafted a plan to achieve a sustainable society. In 1997, the goals and objectives ofthe sustainability plan became policy of the City and County of San Francisco (www.sustainable-city.org).

    Managingstakeholders

    449

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    7/18

    A comparison of the major tourism-related features of these three urbandestinations is provided in Table I.

    Data collectionNetwork analysis requires either the collection of data from all members, or the use ofsamples (Scott, 2000). In the current research it became clear that it would be almostimpossible to achieve a complete census that would permit examination of allrelationships between stakeholders. There were a finite number of governmentagencies to canvass, but a potentially huge and unreachable number of organizationsin the tourism industry and host environment clusters.

    To examine existing destination stakeholder relations, a list of stakeholders wasdeveloped a priori using sources such as World Tourism Organization (1993) andmajor tourism textbooks. The list consisted of stakeholders from the industry,government and the community. The alternative was to have a different list named byevery respondent, which might have resulted in some very incomplete answers.

    Of the identified target population, a total of 578 (190 in Calgary, 195 in Victoria, and193 in San Francisco) questionnaires were mailed to stakeholders representing threepartners of ST in the three cities. The surveys were mailed, with instructions that theybe completed by top management. To increase the response rate, non-respondents werefollowed up according to the Dillmans (1978) total design method. Two weeks afterthe questionnaires were mailed to the respondents, a reminder postcard was sent,followed by a re-mailing of the entire package to those stakeholders that did notrespond within three weeks. A total of 173 (70 respondents from Calgary, 62 fromVictoria, and 41 from San Francisco) returned surveys were useable.

    Partly owing to the sampling design, a majority of responses came from onestakeholder cluster the tourism industry. Within that cluster there were fewer

    respondents from tourism services or advertising, compared to accommodation andattraction companies. Unfortunately, one key organization, the San FranciscoConvention and Visitors Bureau (SFCVB) did not respond to this study.

    The exact numbers in each cluster are not critical to the network analysis, nor is itessential that a sample be random. Redundancy in the sample ensures thatall-important links in the network are identified. Saturation is quickly reached,although minor and peripheral linkages might be missed. Major inter-cluster linkagesare also revealed. Even though a key stakeholder did not respond, many otherrespondents identified their links to the SFCVB. The in-degree measure that is used tooperationalize centrality enabled SFCVB to receive ties but they were no longer able toindicate theirs. But, it is the overall structure and patterning of the network that is ofmost interest.

    Study findings and discussionThe maps of destination networks illustrate interconnectedness by identifying theexact position of destination stakeholders in the tourism networks (Figures 1-3). In thissection, the existing structural positions of stakeholders such as central, isolate, orbridging in each city are presented first and then, the connectedness of perceivedcritical destination development stakeholders are discussed.

    IJCHM20,4

    450

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    8/18

    Population

    DMOcharacteristics

    Lodging

    Majorattractions

    No.ofvisitors(annual)

    Calgary(www.

    tourismcalgary.com)

    Approx.

    1million

    (2006)

    Not-for-profit

    association;cityhasone

    boardposition

    11,1

    00(accommodation

    rooms)(2006)

    CalgaryStampede

    (annualevent)

    Businesstravelis

    predominant

    Gatewaytothe

    CanadianRockies

    Nearly5million(2006)

    Victoria(www.

    tourismvictoria.com)

    Approx.

    330,0

    00

    (GreaterVictoria

    2006)

    Not-for-profit

    association;cityhasone

    boardposition

    7,0

    00(accommodation

    rooms)(2006)

    Culturalattractions

    Cruiseport

    Provincialcapital

    Britishheritage

    3.5million(Greater

    Victoria

    2006)

    SanFrancisco(www.

    sfcvb.org)

    Approx.

    750,0

    00(2003)Not-for-profit;all

    businessleaders

    32,8

    50(hotelrooms)

    (2006)

    Majorbusinessand

    leisuretravel

    destination

    Gatewaytowine

    country

    15.8million

    (2006)

    Table I.Comparison of the sample

    cities

    Managingstakeholders

    451

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    9/18

    Figure 1.Calgary network

    IJCHM20,4

    452

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    10/18

    Figure 2.Victoria network

    Managingstakeholders

    453

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    11/18

    Figure 3.San Francisco network

    IJCHM20,4

    454

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    12/18

    Network mapsIn Figure 1, Tourism Calgary (the local DMO) and cultural attractions are near thecenter of the network, closely surrounded by the travel trade, recreational operators,car rentals, Calgary Airport Authority (CAA), tourism services, Calgary downtown

    association, and hotels. Peripherally located in this network are local institutions,Calgary Convention Center, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), communitygroups, B&Bs, natural attractions, motels, rail industry, and Calgary EconomicDevelopment Authority.

    The Victoria network map (Figure 2) illustrates that Tourism Victoria (the localDMO), cultural attractions, hotels, motels, recreational operators and institutions were atthe center of the network, while Victoria Conference Center, NGOs, tourism services,travel trade, and air carriers surrounded them. Also, Figure 2 shows there were norelational ties (i.e. joint tourism business projects/programs) between, for example, cruisecompanies and car rentals, or between B&Bs and the national tourism organization.

    In San Franciscos network (Figure 3), SFCVB, cultural and natural attractions, theCity of San Francisco, hotels and travel trade were at the center of the network;Moscone Convention Centre, NGOs, recreational operators, entertainmentorganizations, and the Chamber of Commerce surrounded them; transportation,B&Bs, airport authority and institutions were at the periphery. The cruise stakeholdergroup was an isolate in the San Francisco contact network.

    Different patterns of relationships between destination stakeholders were identifiedin the three cities. Although network maps displayed DMOs at the center of eachdestinations contact network, other stakeholders that were centrally located in eachcity were different. This suggested that key destination stakeholders could be differentin each city and there is no one single network structure for destinations. Calgary hasfewer stakeholders located at the center. Meanwhile, Victoria had a more diverse groupof stakeholders located at the center of the network. A diverse group of stakeholders

    would be better not only for representation and involvement of various groupsinterests, expectations and goals in sustainable tourism strategies and policies but alsoto ease the challenges that might be faced during the implementation phase.

    A second point concerns who these central stakeholders were in the networks.The Calgary network showed that the CAA is one of the significant business partnersin Calgary. This idiosyncratic character of the Calgary network could be explained byreferring information collected through interviews conducted during the first stage ofthis study. The CAA is highly involved in tourism and recognizes the importance ofestablishing strong contacts with diverse tourism actors.

    Victorias inner circle stakeholders included recreational operators, motels andlocal institutions such as financial and consulting companies and the university, alongwith the core urban tourism stakeholders such as Tourism Victoria, cultural

    attractions and hotels. Interconnectedness of a diverse group of stakeholders reflects adifferent character in Victoria. Unlike the other two cities, educational and financialinstitutions were also among the central players in Victoria network.

    It was also observed that, overall, the San Francisco network had fewer links. Thiswas partly related to the lower response rate. But, it could also reflect the uniquecharacteristic of stakeholder relationships in San Francisco. During the interview stage,it was found that the relatively larger size of San Franciscos tourism and hospitalityindustry was perceived as one of the complexities of the industry. The concerns

    Managingstakeholders

    455

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    13/18

    regarding the size of San Franciscos tourism and hospitality industry complicatedestablishing contacts to different sectors of the industry. There were very limitedrelationships among destination stakeholders within and between clusters. With fewerlinks, San Francisco network illustrated a more sparse network than Calgary and

    Victoria networks. The local government authority also displayed a differentcharacteristic in San Franciscos network. The respondents perceived government as akey player in San Francisco. Although there is no known collaboration between theindustry members and the government other than the regular funding contract betweenthem this finding might be a result of the sustainability plan that might have positionedthe city as an active player in their environment.

    The network maps that provide a summary of the relational ties are also consideredto reflect the basic structure of how the industry interactions in cities function. As willbe seen in the ensuing section, centrality within the network is not accidental, it is afunction of influence or power and it is accompanied by a high degree of perceivedlegitimacy. Regardless of small variations that would occur as sampling methods andresponse rates vary, results strongly suggest that the positions of stakeholders locatedat the center of the networks will be relatively enduring, while the positions of thoseperipherally located could be unstable.

    CentralityNetwork theory argues that structural position in the networks determinesstakeholders status or influence in the system. According to Cobb (1988) awell-connected player in a network has a strategic advantage. Thus, higher centralitystakeholders are able to manage information flows and influence others. By contrast,an isolate may find itself without significant input, or unable to get timelyinformation about crucial decisions affecting tourism development.

    According to the in-degree based centrality, DMOs were the stakeholders with the

    highest centrality in the three cities. They had more contacts to other members of thenetwork than did the other stakeholders. High centrality measures give the local DMOsadvantaged positions. But the centrality of an actor in a network refers to more than

    just interconnectivity, because there is power obtained through the network structure(Krackhardt, 1990; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). The more the other stakeholders aredependent upon the DMOs for what they need the more likely it becomes thatstakeholders will view the DMOs as being influential. Furthermore, other powerfulstakeholders become aligned with them. This, in turn, makes the DMOs appear evenmore powerful and they could be considered super powers.

    The other influential stakeholders in Calgary network were the provincial tourismmarketing organization and the hotels stakeholder groups. Having more ties withhotels stakeholder group indicate that the destination is dependent on their product.

    In Victoria, in addition to the local DMO, stakeholders had more ties with thecultural attractions subsector. With such a strategic advantage, cultural attractions aremore likely to influence destination development in Victoria than other stakeholders.

    A more diverse group of stakeholders has this strategic advantage to influencedestination development in San Francisco. The attractions sector included culturalattractions, natural attractions and entertainment stakeholder group. Again, it isobserved that stakeholders with access to or possession of critical resources have thehighest centrality in the tourism network.

    IJCHM20,4

    456

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    14/18

    Critical destination development stakeholdersThe respondents in each city perceived DMOs to be appropriate, desirable or legitimatestakeholders for destination development. A total of 96 percent of respondents inCalgary, 94 percent of respondents in Victoria and 93 percent respondents in San

    Francisco indicated that their local DMOs should be included in destinationdevelopment. Furthermore, in each city, respondents in all three clusters identifiedlocal DMOs to be legitimate. The attractions sector in each city was also perceived tobe legitimate. The government agents were the other legitimate stakeholders. In fact,the findings from three urban destinations suggested that high centrality stakeholdersacross destination networks were also perceived to hold high legitimacy degrees fordestination development. However, the results emphasized that DMOs had importantroles in destination development.

    In terms of powerful destination stakeholders, the responses from three cities and allthree clusters showed similar results. About 97 and 83 percent of respondentsperceived their local tourism organizations to possess a very high and high degreeof power over others in destination development. The findings suggested that highcentrality destination stakeholders were also among the top five most powerful ones.As the network theorists suggested, centrality did refer to power obtained through thenetworks structure (Barley et al., 1992). The empirical findings supported theargument that high centrality stakeholders were perceived to have more influence thanthose that were more peripheral.

    Analysis also suggested that local governments involvement in destinationdevelopment is appropriate, since they are among the most powerful stakeholders. Inpractice, the trend is toward decreasing levels of government involvement in tourism(Swarbrooke, 1999). Tourism organizations are being privatized, and industry-ledorganizations put emphasis on destination marketing rather than destinationdevelopment.

    The hotel stakeholder group was also perceived to be a powerful player indestination development by each cluster in each city. This could be because of theinfluence they have over DMOs, which stems from their corporate status and financialpower. Furthermore, since hotels are the major contributors to the superstructure ofurban destinations, the destinations are dependent upon their product.

    Conclusions and implicationsThe existing structural positions of stakeholders representing three diverse clusters ofST development in three cities displayed that the stakeholders located at the center ofnetworks in the three cities were the DMOs. But, other stakeholders with highcentrality were different in each city. However, they were stakeholders with access toor possession of critical resources. It is argued that since each destination faces a

    different set of key stakeholders, the interactions would probably aggregate intounique patterns of influences in each city. As a result, sustainable destinationdevelopment will be as unique as their historical patterns of development, the nature oftheir industry, and governmental and institutional culture.

    The study applied stakeholder perspective and identified the most important,important and unimportant stakeholders for destination development in the tourism andhospitality industry. The local DMOs are perceived to hold the greatest legitimacy andhave power over others regarding destination development. Therefore, it is the entity

    Managingstakeholders

    457

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    15/18

    most likely to take active role in sustainable destination development. DMOs, as highcentrality destination stakeholders, could be key players in not only management butalso planning and development, and linking planners, investors, developers, residents,local organizations, and the industry for developing a sustainable policy for their

    destinations. The power of DMOs arises not only from holding a high central positionwithin the destination network, but also from the dependency of stakeholders on DMOsfor resources such as expertise, information, and clientele. DMOs have the most crucialroles in achieving inter-stakeholder collaboration for developing a shared tourism policy,particularly because the many and diverse industry actors trust or depend on them.

    The other critical stakeholders in destination development were hotels, attractions,and government agents. These critical stakeholders that had advantageous positionsin the structure of destination networks also have important decision-making roles,and are key to understanding the circulation of ideas and decisions to act collectively,particularly when the individuals are in different organizations. From this perspective,the DMOs, hotels and attractions stakeholders can be used to communicate destinationplanning and development issues, facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, increaseawareness of network members towards sustainability challenges, and coordinateefforts toward reaching shared tourism and hospitality industry goals. In each city, allof these influential stakeholders came from the industry cluster. This could be relatedto the sampling but at same time highlights the lack of bridges between the clusters.

    The DMOs, hotels and attractions stakeholders have another major role to play inbetween-cluster networking. They must partner with the bridging stakeholders so thatcontacts between clusters can be established. Establishing ties with less connected orisolated stakeholders would help minimize the evident disconnect between clusters andimprove legitimacy for sustainable urban policy.

    Destinations can no longer ignore various stakeholder concerns. On the contrary,they are challenged to create a more participative model. According to network theory,

    to create an environment in which collective action can be realized, more contacts haveto be established. Thus, there is a need for sustainability networks. The termsustainability networks is used to indicate the interactions of multiple stakeholderswith varying degrees of interest in sustainable destination development. Theinterconnectedness of diverse stakeholders representing governmental bodies,business firms, persons or other entities on sustainability dimensions can improvethe process of sustainable destination development.

    What would sustainable urban tourism actually look like? This research does notprovide the answer, and the various stakeholder goals and meanings attached to theconcept of SUT are to be discussed elsewhere. But the network analysis of urban tourismstakeholders does strongly suggest that sustainability will only be perceived to exist as aprocess, not a final product, in which all the major stakeholders participate as equals.

    Exclusion of one or another important voice in this planning or policy-making processwill certainly result in dissention, while their formal collaboration will ensure that oneperspective does not completely dominate the discourse.

    This study advances theory and practice in the area of urban tourism by empiricallyidentifying legitimate and powerful stakeholders that were critical in destinationdevelopment. This study also advances theory and practice in stakeholder research byapplying it in tourism destination development, and empirically testing the attributesof urban destination stakeholders.

    IJCHM20,4

    458

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    16/18

    References

    Barley, S., Freeman, J. and Hybels, R. (1992), Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology,in Nohria, N. and Eccles, R. (Eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and

    Action, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

    Blackshaw, T. and Long, J. (1998), A critical examination of the advantages of investigatingcommunity and leisure from a social network perspective, Leisure Studies, Vol. 17,pp. 233-48.

    Carroll, A.B. (1993), Business and Society, South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.

    Cobb, M. (1988), Influence and exchange networks among tourism oriented business in fourMichigan communities, doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing,MI.

    Costenbader, E. and Valente, T.W. (2003), The stability of centrality measures when networksare sampled, Social Networks, No. 25, pp. 283-307.

    Dillmann, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

    Freeman, E.R. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

    Freeman, L.C. (1979), Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarifications, SocialNetworks, Vol. 1, pp. 215-39.

    Galaskiewicz, J. (1979), The structure of community organizational networks, Social Forces,Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 1346-64.

    Galaskiewicz, J. and Burt, R.S. (1991), Interorganization contagion in corporate philantrophy,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 88-105.

    Galaskiewicz, J. and Shatin, D. (1981), Leadership and networking among neighborhood humanservices, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 434-48.

    Getz, D. and Jamal, T. (1994), The environment-community symbiosis: a case for collaborativetourism planning, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 152-73.

    Hardy, A.L. and Beeton, R.J.S. (2001), Sustainable tourism or maintainable tourism: managing

    resources for more than average outcomes, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 168-92.

    Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (2000), Community roundtables for tourism related conflicts: the dialecticsof consensus and process structures, in Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (Eds), TourismCollaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Channel ViewPublications, Clevedon.

    John, P. and Cole, A. (1998), Sociometric mapping techniques and the comparison of policynetworks: economic decision making in Leeds and Lille, in Marsh, D. (Ed.), Comparing

    Policy Networks, Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Knoke, D. and Wood, J.R. (1981), Organize for Action: Commitment in Voluntary Associations,Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

    Krackhardt, D. (1990), Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition and power in

    organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 342-69.

    Larson, M. (2002), A political approach to relationship marketing: case study of the StorsjoyranFestival, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4, pp. 119-43.

    Mackellar, J. (2006), Conventions, festivals, and tourism: exploring the network that binds,Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 45-56.

    Medeiros de Araujo, L. and Bramwell, B. (1999), Stakeholder assessment and collaborativetourism planning: the case of Brazils Costa Dourada project, Journal of SustainableTourism, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 356-78.

    Managingstakeholders

    459

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    17/18

    Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), Institutional organizations: formal structures as myth and

    ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80, pp. 340-63.

    Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), Toward a theory of stakeholder identification

    and salience: defining the principles of who and what really counts, Academy of

    Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-86.Money, R.B. (2000), Social networks and referrals in international organization buying of travel

    services: the role of culture and location, International Journal of Hospitality and TourismAdministration, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-48.

    Park, K. (1997), Understanding the social network structure of Korean older adults touristbehavior: a preliminary step in tourism development, doctoral dissertation, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

    Paskeleva-Shapira, K. (2001), Promoting partnership for effective governance of sustainableurban tourism, paper presented at the INTA International Seminar Tourism in the City

    Opportunity for Regeneration and Development, Turin, February.

    Paskeleva-Shapira, K. (2003), EU SUT-Governance project final report, available at: http://sut.

    itas.fzk.dePavlovich, K. (2001), The twin landscapes of Waitomo: tourism network and sustainability

    through the Landcare Group, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 491-504.

    Pavlovich, K. (2003), The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination network: theWaitomo Caves, New Zealand, Tourism Management, Vol. 24, pp. 203-16.

    Pforr, C. (2002), The makers and shakers of tourism policy in the northern territory of

    Australia: a policy network analysis of actors and their relational constellations, Journalof Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134-50.

    Pforr, C. (2006), Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study, Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 87-108.

    Robson, J. and Robson, I. (1996), From shareholders to stakeholders: critical issues for tourism

    marketers, Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 533-40.

    Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model, Annalsof Tourism Research, Vol. 26, pp. 312-28.

    Scott, J. (2000), Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Sage, London.

    Sheehan, L. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), Destination stakeholders: exploring identity and salience,

    Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 711-34.

    Stokes, R. (2004), A framework for the analysis of events-tourism knowledge networks, Journalof Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 108-21.

    Stokowski, P.A. (1990), Extending the social groups model: social network analysis in recreationresearch, Leisure Science, Vol. 12, pp. 251-63.

    Stokowski, P.A. (1994), Leisure in Society: A Network Structural Perspective, Mansell, London.

    Swarbrooke, J. (1999), Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI Publishing, New York, NY.Tichy, N., Tushman, M. and Fombrun, C. (1979), Social network analysis for organizations,

    Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 507-19.

    Tyler, D. and Dinan, C. (2001), The role of interested groups in Englands emerging tourismpolicy network, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4 Nos 2-4, pp. 210-52.

    Walsh, J.A., Jamrozy, A. and Burr, S.W. (2001), Sense of place as a component of sustainabletourism marketing, in McCool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (Eds), Tourism, Recreation andSustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, CABI Publishing, Oxford.

    IJCHM20,4

    460

  • 7/29/2019 net work analysis of a tourism destination

    18/18

    Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications,Cambridge, New York, NY.

    World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1993), Sustainable Tourism Development Guide for LocalPlanners, WTO, Madrid.

    World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1999), Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, WTO, Madrid.

    Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B. and Yuksel, A. (1999), Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning atPamukkale, Turkey, Tourism Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 351-60.

    Corresponding authorSeldjan Timur can be contacted at: [email protected]

    Managingstakeholders

    461

    To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints