In undertaking the literature review that informs this study it was important to pay attention to the sets of literature that:
a) establish the field of study b) identify emergent concepts
c) highlight neglected, under researched and absent elements.
The four chapters of the review have been designed to move through these sets, from the macro level concerns with urban tourism development through to the micro level issues of involvement, collaboration, power and stakeholder definitions in order to produce a narrower and sharper focus to address the aims of the research. The separation has produced its own difficulties as the literatures are interconnected and difficult to disentangle. Hence the notion of stakeholder is introduced before the chapter seeking to explore its elaboration. This makes for difficulties in authoring but serves to reinforce the notion of complexity and interconnectedness that underpins all aspects of this study.
The research aims identified were:
• To determine the notion of stakeholder in tourism and the parameters of the concept;
• To identify the stakeholders in urban tourism and investigate the power relations between them;
• To critically evaluate the level and limitations of stakeholder involvement in urban tourism development.
Each of these aims addresses and examines the idea of stakeholders as being central to the processes of tourism development. This literature review will present a critical account of the emergence of the stakeholder concept in tourism studies as a way of establishing the parameters of the concept that underpins the empirical study that follows.
In the first section, this Chapter explores the ideas of tourism development and assesses the urban context of tourism. This defines the field in which the study takes shape. The field can be seen as constructed by notions of planning that have concentrated on organisational and procedural approaches, neglecting questions of interest and agency that are essential to stakeholder analysis. The second part, Chapter 3, looks at the issues
of participation and capacity and the concept of collaboration which has become increasingly significant in management studies as one way in which stakeholders might overcome differences of interest to work together productively to define and achieve common goals. Collaboration has a complicated relationship to questions of power: some commentators suggest collaborative working can overcome power differences, while others suggest that inequalities of power shape, or are reproduced in, collaborative processes. The following Chapter 4 examines the development of the stakeholder concept, with particular attention to its use in approaches to tourism development. This discussion raises questions about the relative neglect of questions of power and power differentials in stakeholder analysis. Consequently the final Chapter 5 considers theories of power, centring on the work of Weber (1978; 2003), Lukes (1974), Foucault (1972;
1988) and Clegg (1989). These approaches and their implications for studying power in practice provide crucial orientations for the empirical study of stakeholders. One of the key issues identified in the tourism literature was the different ways in which power was used in the accounts and how in many it was a significant absence. The chapter concludes by drawing out the analytic objectives that shaped the empirical study of tourism development in the two cities that is reported and discussed in the subsequent chapters.
This chapter will present a critical consideration of the literature in the fields of tourism development and urban tourism studies. These two areas were researched but it should be noted are not the primary focus of the study. However they are essential to the construction of the context of the research. This discussion is therefore not intended to offer comprehensive accounts of the fields but has been included to demonstrate how the two different literatures present issues which are relevant to and inform the research development of this study.
Firstly it is important to establish the limits on the terms being used in this review. Urban tourism development has generally not involved the macro level discussion of development that informs studies of Third World development (Roberts and Hite, 2007) Although the significance of development theories and globalisation arguments (Dicken et al., 1998, Wahab and Cooper, 2001) are recognised, they are not taken to be central
issues in the construction of the framework of this study.
We must explore carefully what this term globalisation means, as it appears that there are different ways of using the same term, which have very different impacts on the way the issue is presented. Three important aspects of globalisation seem to emerge from the literature that impact on tourism:
1. Globalisation as homogenising force (McDonaldisation theses for example)
2. Globalisation as an opportunity for facilitating access to important markets for new entrants and old players
3. Globalisation as the discourse of success - a self-fulfilling prophesy.
As academics write about globalisation, they appear to have two different models of the process open to them (MacLeod, 2004). One sees globalisation as a distinct process - something which is happening to the world. The other sees globalisation as an intensification of changes which are taking place in society as a result of other identifiable forces (Rosenberg, 2002).
The first model of globalisation as a distinct process (De Beule and Cuyvers, 2005) is most powerfully seen embodied in the ‘disneyfication’ argument, where it is seen that Disney is transforming the world. This version of globalisation sees a process where global corporations are producing and reproducing a world in their own image (Dunning, 1993). The businesses - and this would include tourism businesses - are operating in a market which is no more than an extension of their own back garden, but that market place has been extended across the world and constructed in their own conditions (Davis and Nyland (eds), 2004). One key factor involved in these accounts is the role of technology in facilitating participation in this global system (Roy, 2005). A critical account of this thesis can be found in Ritzer’s accounts of McDonaldisation (1993, 1998 and 1999). Here globalisation offers the promise of worldwide standards in service provision, with the promise or threat of not disappointing the customers’ expectations where ever they are.
The second model sees globalisation as the summation of a range of other processes
which are happening within the societies of the late Twentieth and early Twenty First Centuries (Hoogevelt, 1997). There are political processes which are taking place alongside this (Smiers, 2003). There are processes which change the way that social life is lived - access to satellite and cable broadcasting networks opened up mass communications in a way which has revolutionized the way the broadcasting system works today (Hirst and Thompson, 1995).
There is a possible third view of the processes of globalisation, which sees
“globalisation” as a discourse. The importance of discourse for this account is that discourses have a power in themselves and in particular they have the power to shape the
“lived realities” of people’s everyday life. These realities do not exist until they are constructed by people interacting in and through social processes (Jameson and Miyoshi, 1998). Moreover, those processes then assume a reality and you get to the really important point about what they have been creating as the more people buy into a discourse the more power those discourses have.
These definitions of the globalisation process must be questioned. However in asking the questions, it must be recognised that there are certain effects of the globalisation discourse which are affecting hospitality and tourism on three levels. These levels are:
the expectations of the guests, the expectations of the locals and
the opportunities which may exist because of these changing expectations.
The expectations are different for both the international guest and the domestic guest - what is the domestic tourism experience in the region? It is necessary to consider what has traditionally been the domestic tourism experience and what the expectations are now? How that is changing with the expectations that come with the global process is an important aspect of the cultural dynamic?
Globalisation also makes things available - it puts into place an international infrastructure which makes things possible. It is an infrastructure which makes the changing expectations realizable (Olds et al, 1999). It changes the opportunities open to
people and it changes the availability of those opportunities. What is more important than studying the global at the global level is to look at the ways in which it impacts on people’s lived realities (Whalley, Anderton and Brenton, 2006). When you examine the way that people live their everyday lives, what you see is that discourse of the globalisation processes cut right the way across every day life. It constructs civil society in new ways, but it has to be recognised that the impact is differently experienced locally.
The changes are re-presented in many different ways depending on the local contexts upon which the processes are being mapped and the discourses read. It will be different in Hong Kong from Beijing, from Kuala Lumpur, from Manila and from Bangkok and Birmingham. It is different regionally as well as locally and it will be different between countries. There will be as many differences - if not more - than there are similarities - across regions and certainly across nation states.
If anyone suggests that there is a monolithic process called globalisation and that, as a result, we will all be the same a few years down the line - do not believe them (Robertson, 1992). That observation is predicated upon a notion that the power of the economic is total and that it will be the force that determines the future. Economics is not the only social process involved (Gangopadhyay and Chatterji, 2005). Development theory introduced the notion of core and peripheral regions, centres that were the ‘core’
of the civilising and development processes and peripheral regions which supported the continued development of the core (Peet, 1991). In the good old days, the UK could be seen as a core with the colonies as the periphery. The same patterns of development can be seen across the Asia Pacific region, not only with colonial core periphery regional relations but also between strong national capitals and peripheral regions within the nation state. It is also possible to propose that there is a core for the Asia Tiger economies and then a periphery within the region which has supported that development.
International tourism has seen the impact of the first two aspects very powerfully - the tourist infrastructure has been shaped by global operators introducing the style and expectations of the dominant tourist exporting nations throughout the world. However, these developments have not all been undertaken by established multinational
corporations and tourism continues to be inspired by a multitude of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). These SMEs have added a great deal to the dynamism of the tourism sector and to the diversity of the touristic offer. We have to recognise the dangers of domination and the possibilities of dynamism that globalisation can produce in understanding the growth and future development of tourism.
The third aspect of globalisation is the dangerous one for tourism. If people come to accept the discourse of the global, we will lose a great deal that is valuable and is argued to be vital to the success of tourism. If we accept the credo that the global solution is the answer to tourists' demands, then we will allow the creation of a tourism offer that is standardised and recognisable the world over. Disneyland is an important part of tourism but we do not all have to offer Disney or a Disney clone to operate successfully within the tourism industry.
Trends in international tourism support this and suggest that the globalising forces may have reached a point of resistance (Poon, 2003). Tourists are arguing that they want to see greater choice and take more control of their experience than previously. Mass tourist packages are still important but independent and self-directed tourism is becoming more popular. Moreover, the destinations for the tourists are changing, the traditional destinations are still important but we are witnessing a trend towards more but shorter breaks focussed on interest and activity motivations. We will explore some of the elements that allow cities to construct distinctive identities and how these can be exploited within the global tourism market.
Urban tourism does not exist outside these pressures as Fainstein and Judd (1999:12–13) have observed. The “globalization of mass tourism leads to an odd paradox: whereas the appeal of tourism is the opportunity to see something different, cities that are remade to attract tourists seem more and more alike.” In Singapore, Chang (1999:93) noted that
“both globalisation and localisation are occurring simultaneously with the outcome being a conflation of homogenising and localising influences in places.”
It is necessary to rehearse some of the assumptions which have been made in the construction of this study about tourism and about the nature of tourism. Svensson et al (2005:32) argued five assumptions could be identified that informed studies of tourist destinations and their development process. They summarised them as: “
a) There is a multi-actor complexity of the destination that needs to be taken into account.
b) It is also likely that certain resource dependencies between the actors involved are important dynamic factors of the process and need to be understood.
c) The public-private dimension of the destination may be important; i.e. the role of government vis-à-vis firms needs to be taken into account.
d) Who is in control and the leadership aspect are open issues in destination development
e) Destination development is a process with low predictability in regard to outcomes.”
These assumptions will also operate in the study of urban tourism. There is always a debate about what constitutes urban tourism as a subset of tourism linked to spatial definitions of location or to identifying motivations for tourism with particular attributes.
Here, following Ashworth (1992), urban tourism is taken to relate to the setting and the associated activities that occur there, including all tourism impacting on the urban environments of the two cities, so includes motivations which are not specifically related to the urban area. This is important in management terms as both cities attract large numbers of tourists from areas outside the city who would not be defined as urban tourists. However, the presence of these tourists in the urban domain shapes both the management of tourism and the definition of the offer. The question of definition echoes the debate in the pages of the Annals of Tourism Research about studies of Heritage tourism (Garrod and Fyall, 2000; Poria, Butler and Airey, 2001; and Garrod and Fyall, 2001). At the end of which Garrod and Fyall (2001:1051) conclude: “of far greater importance is the recognition of the proper place of definitions in tourism research. As we have argued elsewhere (Garrod and Fyall, 1998), the real danger in concentrating on definitions is that one rarely transcends rhetoric. So much debating time is spent about what something means in principle that one loses time considering what it signifies in
practice. It is suspected that the reluctance of many researchers to move beyond the definition stage is a symptom of their unwillingness to engage in the deeper and more challenging issues involved in applied tourism research. “Managing Heritage Tourism”
was a deliberate attempt to move beyond definitions and to look at the practice of sustainable tourism in the particular context of the heritage sector. Moreover our paper shows that definitions are not always helpful in conducting research. Imposing definitions on expert panellists would have served to hinder, rather than facilitate the Delphi process.
In qualitative research, the absence of precise definitions can often be a virtue rather than a vice.” In this context the limitations would have fallen on the practitioner respondents but the argument for an inclusive definition of urban tourism still holds.
The study of urban tourism development has for a long time been dominated by a concern for the planning of that development. This reflects the importance of the planning approaches in relation to both urban and rural spaces. In both development has been identified as a process that needs to be, and can be, planned and managed.
Tourism development
The need for planning tourism development can easily be justified by examples of unplanned development and their consequences. Planning is essential to achieve successful development as it can bring benefits without inducing significant problems and creating unwanted impacts (Gunn, 1994; Gunn with Var, 2002; Inskeep, 1994). As Gunn with Var (2002:3) observe: “The truth is that tourism development is being done by those who focus primarily on individual parts rather than tourism as a whole. Tourism can enrich people’s lives, can expand an economy, can be sensitive and protective of environments, and can be integrated into a community with minimum impact. But a new mind set is called for, that demands more and better planning and design of all tourism development, especially how the many parts fit together.”
Physical planning has taken place for centuries. Evidence of city planning can be found in several ancient civilisations (India, the Yukatan, etc.), and it was thriving in medieval
times, when walled cities were popular. In the UK, town planning has been practised since the 19th century. (Cherry, 1984) However, the social and economic elements of planning have been added to the process only in the 1970s. “Planning is a multidimensional activity and seeks to be integrative. It embraces social, economic, political, psychological, anthropological, and technological factors. It is concerned with the past, present and future.” (Rose, 1984:45)
Planning has not always been popular with people because of the negative connotations that had been attached to the term. What planning has been accused of - “planning places too much power in a governmental bureaucracy”, “elitism of professional planners”
(Gunn, 1994:19) - are features of conventional planning, a philosophy that puts planners as value-neutral experts in focus of the process, who determine what should be done, with hardly any consultation with those affected by the outcome (Lang, 1988)
A new planning philosophy emerged in the 1980s with the growing awareness of the importance of citizen input as an integral element of planning (Marshall, 1983; Lang, 1988). In the new concept, interactive planning, the emphasis has shifted from planning for to planning with, where public involvement is taken for granted. The plan is about what the participants of the planning process agree to do, and the whole process is based on continuous consultation and negotiation.
The underlying approach to tourism planning now is achieving sustainable development, a perspective that builds upon the merits of interactive planning whilst it includes new elements. This approach implies that “the natural, cultural and other resources of tourism are conserved for continuous use in the future, while still bringing benefits to the present society” (Inskeep, 1994:7)
Because of it multidimensional nature, “Planning is an extremely ambiguous and difficult word to define” (Hall, 2000:6). He argues that planning is only one part of an overall
‘planning-decision action’ process, where “various activities in that process may be difficult to isolate as the planning process and other activities involve such things as
bargaining and negotiation, compromise, coercion, values, choice and politics” (Hall,
bargaining and negotiation, compromise, coercion, values, choice and politics” (Hall,