Future eDestination Marketing

Abstract

Tourism destinations are difficult to manage because of the complex relationships of their diverse public and private stakeholders. At the same time, strategic marketing efforts are important for destinations to foster positive consequences of tourism, particularly given the range of opportunities and challenges created by the emergence of social media that destinations can use advantageously. This article aims to explore future eDestination marketing from Australian tourism stakeholder network perspectives. Workshops were convened in July 2012 in Melbourne, Australia, for select stakeholders invited to contribute to the futures national tourism technology strategy. They presented a stakeholder network approach to futures strategy development that aims to contribute to that used in recent national tourism plans and strategies for Australia developed by the government. Building on theories of stakeholder networks and futures, the article demonstrates the value of a futures stakeholder network method compared to traditional government approaches by critically analyzing outcomes of both.

Keywords

futures stakeholder network digital tourism destination marketing strategy development

Introduction

With the widespread diffusion of the Internet, destination marketing has changed from passive to active promotion, from one-way to interactive marketing, and from collateral material to user-generated contents. New technologies, rapid changes in the business environment, industry markets and structures, and consumer needs continue to challenge tourism destination organizations in fundamental ways (Gretzel, Yuan, and Fesenmaier 2000). In this environment, destinations need a workable, responsive process to harness state-of-the-art skills and knowledge in order to envisage the future, to develop clear pathways to meet the changes and to move to swift and appropriate implementation (Buhalis and Wagner 2013).

Tourism destinations are multifaceted and are typically challenged by “the interdependence of the multiple stakeholders, the fragmented resources, and an almost complete lack of hierarchy and authority” (Lemmetyinen and Go 2009, p. 31). Because of the complexity of the relationships of their diverse public and private stakeholders, they are some of the most difficult entities to manage and market (Buhalis 2000; Sautter and Leisen 1999). Inclusion of stakeholders, then, is particularly important for destination planning and management as well as strategic and coordinated marketing efforts to ensure that institutional strategies “converge towards the same goals” (d’Angella and Go 2009, p. 432).

Different approaches exist to derive useful descriptions of possible tourism futures. Some futures-based literature in tourism analyzed various drivers—economic, demographic, technical, and other—to construct a vision of tourism (Dwyer et al. 2009; Yeoman et al. 2012). Other futures-based literature explored strategic destination planning for tourism through scenario thinking (Formica and Kothari 2008). It applied a method with a three-phased workshop: the Prior phase—invited experts determined future forces that could drive proactive tourism planning and strategy development; the During phase—industry leaders explored future trends in think tanks; and the After phase—a report was generated based on these outcomes. Although the task of these workshops was construction of a future for several specific localities, concomitantly they facilitated a valuable long-term outlook from multiple perspectives. They also generated “multiple future scenarios that will affect the tourism industry in U.S. urban destinations” (Formica and Kothari 2008, p. 366), suggesting that industry involvement in the form of workshops is a valid approach to deriving useful and strategic visions of tourism futures.

The importance of engagement in collective futuring for tourism was also shown by Gretzel et al. (2006), who used a group of destination managers to envision the future and make decisions about what strategic approaches to adopt for marketing destinations in the United States of America, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The outcome was a manifesto for change that was not only comprehensive but also innovative and so fundamental in nature that its premises still hold true, more than 10 years later and despite numerous technological changes that have occurred since. However, the approach was limited in that it only took into consideration the destination marketing organization (DMO) perspective and neglected to obtain input from various other stakeholders.

More recent literature (Rowley 1997; Neville and Menguc 2006; Garriga 2009) and practice suggests that stakeholders can form a network and collaborate around an organization to express their expert views and make decisions collectively for particular topics/issues/challenges. It could be argued that the specific context presented in this article validates inclusion of a network of key stakeholders for futures envisioning informing strategic management and marketing decisions. This approach arguably provides a responsive process and is particularly relevant in developing any strategy for technology and tourism, given the immediacy of the challenges.

The Australian government adopted a traditional approach of consultation with industry to develop a Strategy and to implement a Committee of government representatives that commissioned business consultant reports to illuminate the way ahead for select agenda items. By 2012, this process had stalled and needed updating from the online policy formulated almost a decade earlier. Confronted by evolving technology and usage, changing visitor information preferences and the need to at least maintain destination competitiveness, the process needed a more responsive, inclusive approach from a wider forum of public and private stakeholders in a form suitable for supporting creative thinking and discussion.

Building on theories of stakeholder networks and collective futuring and incorporating global destination benchmarking, the goal of this article is to demonstrate the role and value of developing future tourism strategy in Australia using a stakeholder network approach compared to a traditional government approach; in doing so, it also presents technology strategies for eDestination marketing resulting from the joint brainstorming activities of a stakeholder network. The paper is set out as follows—after establishing the ontological setting, it reviews stakeholder network and futures literature, then analyses the historical approach of the Australian government to developing tourism and technology strategy; it sets out the method of the stakeholder network approach and it critically analyses the outcomes of both approaches and presents strategic implications for digital tourism in Australia. Finally it describes futures for developing national e-tourism strategy driven by stakeholder networks and futures models of e-tourism.

Ontological Setting

In spite of the continuing growth and structural change of tourism, “futurists have paid so little attention to the topic” (Cole and Razak 2009, p. 338). This means that approaches suitable for entire destinations are not discussed in the literature. It was therefore necessary for the purposes of the research presented in this paper to select a futuring approach from the many existing ones and adapt it to the tourism destination context. Futuring techniques have been classified in many ways, mostly based on epistemological or normative considerations (Amer, Daim, and Jetter 2013; Morgan 2011; Aligica 2003; van den Hove 2003). In contrast, Bergman, Karlsson, and Axelsson (2010) propose a classification from an ontological perspective. They present a matrix with two dimensions: (1) Whether truth claims are made and (2) Whether explanatory claims are made. The approach presented here falls into the category of Prediction according to their categorization, making both truth and explanatory claims.

Thus, this paper looks at futuring that makes claims regarding what type of future is likely, and describes the process by which it successfully anticipates and addresses it. Bergman, Karlsson, and Axelsson (2010) postulate that predictions “usually have scientific ambitions and are more precise than in the other outcomes, as they indicate mechanisms and tendencies behind the events and states” (2010, p. 859). The futuring described in the article involved experts from government, industry, and academia and exposed participants to findings of academic research in the course of the futuring process. This underpins the prediction type of forecast noted above being scientific and precise. It further proposes a type of futuring that Floyd (2008) refers to as systems methodology. It fulfills the criteria of recognizing the value of intersubjective and interobjective knowledge; inclusion of participants within the boundaries of the system under consideration; creating future-oriented knowledge suitable for assisting decision making, creating shared understanding and developing awareness in relation to complex problems involving multiple perspectives, without repressing the perspectives of any participants/stakeholders in the process; acknowledging that the system itself is seen differently by different stakeholders; and creating the potential for transformation of the system as part of the navigation toward the future.

Stakeholder Engagement and Networks

Over the past several decades, there has been a growing body of tourism research on stakeholder engagement building on general management theory (Hall 1999). The notion of stakeholders has developed and become entrenched in organizational business literature and practice since the seminal work of Freeman (1984). He defined stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives” (Freeman 1984, p. 46). In stakeholder theory, wider interests than those of shareholders are considered by organizations in formulating decisions, namely, those of their stakeholders. Strategies for the inclusion of stakeholder interests are generally known as “stakeholder management” and can be implemented in a wide variety of ways (Garrod et al. 2012); for example, organizations may consult with stakeholders occasionally to gain an understanding of their interests or may engage them to a greater extent by their integration into the decision-making structures. They can also assemble disparate unlinked stakeholders unknown to each other as described below (Garriga 2009).

There appears to be a different focus of topics in the management versus tourism literature. Most stakeholder theory topics in the management literature pose questions for organizations in the private and to a lesser extent the public sector. Some examples are stakeholder integration into decision making (Garrod et al. 2012), the nature of the relationship between the organization and stakeholders or between stakeholders (Sundaram and Inkpen 2004), stakeholder attributes (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997; Jones and Wicks 1999; Tkaczynski, Rundle-Thiele, and Beaumont 2009), and the organization’s analysis of its stakeholders (Sautter and Leisen 1999; Sheehan and Ritchie 2005).

The focus in the tourism literature is clearly on the public sector. There is an extensive analysis of stakeholder management in the general tourism planning literature and in that for sustainable tourism (Hall 1999; Sautter and Leisen 1999; Caffyn and Jobbins 2003; Wray 2011; Waligo, Clarke, and Hawkins 2012). However, in the context of destination marketing, this is less the case. Examples address stakeholder management to support destination marketing (Buhalis 2000), technology developments and distribution systems (Buhalis and Licata 2002), branding models (Morgan, Pritchard, and Piggot 2003), and public–private sector partnerships in electronic national destination management systems (Mistilis and Daniele 2004) and collaborative tourism marketing (d'Angella and Go 2009). Later stakeholder destination research has included key drivers affecting tourism 2020 (Dwyer et al. 2009), tourism regional interorganizational relationships (March and Wilkinson 2009), regional land uses (Paracchinia et al. 2011), and power in stakeholder groups/actor networks (Beritelli and Laesser 2011). While most of these limit stakeholder discussion to local, city, regional, or national destinations, there has been slight focus on international tourism strategy, for example, ASEAN intergovernmental collaboration (Wong, Mistilis, and Dwyer 2011). There appears to be little research on stakeholder involvement in tourism and technology destination strategy; one exception (McCabe, Sharples, and Foster 2012) is discussed in the next section.

Networks have the capacity to shape the dynamics and evolution of business through their impacts on innovation (Scott, Baggio, and Cooper 2008). They help maintain a competitive advantage and facilitate knowledge transfer processes (Hjalager 2010). They are invaluable to individual organizations conducting business in the contemporary environment (Dale 2003; Grangsjo and Gummesson 2006). Increasingly, networks have superseded the mainstream notion of organizations as individual, autonomous economic entities, as they represent a total economic unit and an association of business value creation. In other words, the organization’s environment is no longer seen as a “hub and spoke” but as a network (Garriga 2009). Additionally, destination networks also provide significant positive value for driving innovation (Buhalis 2000; Zach and Racherla 2011).

Most stakeholder theory to date posits a dyadic interorganizational relationship between the stakeholder and the organization or among stakeholders. This does not recognize the complex, networked structure of the organization–stakeholder relationships (Garriga 2009). Networks are important to consider when analyzing such behavior as organizations do not simply respond to each stakeholder individually but rather to an interaction of multiple influences from all their stakeholders (Neville and Menguc 2006).

Although few studies have researched stakeholder networks, the notion of a single collaborative stakeholder network surrounding the organization has gained currency recently. This is based on stakeholders’ shared views of and interests in the organization. These stakeholders inform and are informed within the network; they present an approach to the organization based on that collaboration. Gray and Wood (1991, p. 146; quoted in Garriga 2009, p. 624), defined interorganizational collaboration in stakeholder theory as “when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide to act on issues related to that domain”.

Rowley (1997) introduced to the analysis social network constructs to measure the structure of stakeholder networks, in respect of density (interconnectivity) and centrality (node position). With this he built a theory of stakeholder influences, incorporating multiple, interdependent stakeholder demands and predicted how organizations respond to simultaneous influence of multiple stakeholders. In contrast to the traditional stakeholder dyadic interorganizational relationship noted above, for stakeholder networks there are direct interstakeholder relationships that can affect their behavior and that of the focus organization. McCabe, Sharples, and Foster (2012) also noted that theories of collaboration for tourism have embraced the “network” approach. They examined stakeholder engagement for designing technology-enhanced tourism services and showed the importance of stakeholder collaboration in the context of product innovation.

Garriga (2009) analyzed the collaborative process surrounding the “Gas-Nat” company and its stakeholders cooperating on the natural gas pipeline program in Argentina by considering the network data to describe the role of the firm in these cooperation processes. Factors enabling cooperation processes include political opportunity structure and the degree of interconnectedness of the stakeholders. The role of the firm in such a process was named the tertius iungens that is a “bringing together” (2009, p. 633) of previously unconnected stakeholders. She also found that “cooperative action in stakeholder network is likely to be a function not only of the network but also of strategic orientation of the stakeholder.” This tertius iungens approach is particularly applicable to any tourism strategy process, given the complexity of its stakeholders mentioned earlier.

Stakeholders and Futures Research

The importance of stakeholders in identifying futures is well recognized in the wider literature for various types of approaches. For example, Van Notten et al. (2003) suggested a broadly shared scenario typology to provide a common understanding of the typical features of scenario development. They suggested that “expert input is more and more complemented by stakeholder-input in today’s scenario projects” (Van Notten et al. 2003, p. 432). Quist and Vergragt (2006) found that in terms of backcasting there was a “shift” to broad stakeholder participation. Stakeholders are very important in “participative backcasting” for planning (Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2008) and in visionary and problem-solving activities. However, not all approaches held through stakeholder workshops are optimal as “refinement of the participative process” may be needed to improve the quality of results (Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2008, p. 44). For example, participants with “varied backgrounds, expertise and value orientations” (Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2008, p. 44) could be recruited and more innovative approaches used to “liberate” their minds.

The approach of participatory knowledge production is well established. For Hage, Leroy, and Petersen (2010) wide stakeholder participation may enhance legitimacy and the quality of decision making in the process. They also suggest that the core business of a relevant government agency was to produce and integrate scientifically robust and policy-relevant knowledge.

Scenarios using participative scenario development workshops may be applied in a multiorganizational context to address issues of mutual importance; they focus on achieving outcomes and stimulating debate and discussion among key stakeholders (Soetanto et al. 2011). Here scenario building aims to engage stakeholders, and a more psychological benefit is that while discussing the future, they are appreciating the interconnectivities of related issues and the collective implications of their choices (Goodier et al. 2010). Another approach with multiorganizational contexts was revealed in a method application to construct integrated scenario-episodes in order to investigate multistakeholder interactions (Sircar et al. 2013). Here the set of integrated scenario-episodes was designed to engage many key stakeholders across various industry sectors and gain successful outcomes.

While the literature is full of examples of stakeholder participation in various types of approaches, surprisingly it does not appear to include stakeholder networks. Most of the articles appear to focus on stakeholder participation as individual experts (Smith et al. 2005) or members of the local community (Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2008) or as organizational representatives (Sircar et al. 2013); none appears to discuss the value or involvement of stakeholder networks in futures development, even though the literature on stakeholder networks is quite advanced.

Historical Approach of the Australian Government

There has been a succession of national tourism plans and strategies for Australia over the last several decades. They have tended to consult widely with Australian industry and state and territory governments to develop strategy and a Committee of government members to implement it supported by commissioned business consultant reports. The challenges with this approach are twofold. First key stakeholders may not volunteer to participate and therefore the breadth and depth of the strategy may be compromised. Second the topics raised may be more immediate and operational, not inclusive of analyses of trends (apart from economic and visitor arrival numbers) that underpin a vision or any futuring. In terms of an online or digital focus, the previous strategy (Australian Government 2003) evolved from two government papers based on wide consultations with industry and interest groups across Australia. It focused on demand-side issues and sought individual organizational input. Although there were no expert panels or key expert stakeholder workshops, it noted that “adopting and building on the use of enabling technologies is also crucial for most tourism businesses” (Australian Government 2003, p. 24). Its focus for an e-strategy rested on improving online capability of small tourism businesses; it mentioned eDestination Marketing only in reference to the Australian Tourist Commission's website australia.com.

The current Australian tourism strategy is based on the Jackson report (Australian Government 2009a). Its Steering Committee consisted of high-level executives from tourism industry associations, state government, the private sector and, including the Chair, the wider business community; it “conducted wide-ranging consultations with industry and government participants around Australia” (Australian Government 2009a, p. 2). There were well-attended tourism public meetings in all major cities and separate private meetings with government officials, though again there were no invited expert panels of industry or academia key expert stakeholder workshops. Of its 10 recommendations, one focused on small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs’) online capability, advising to “urgently support the acceleration of the online capability of the Australian tourism product, working with State and Territory Tourism Organizations to fund programs that expand cost-effective digital platforms for distribution and bookings and accelerate SMEs’ uptake” (Australian Government 2009a, p. 5). While of critical importance, its narrow focus omitted the destination represented through destination marketing organizations as an integral part of any tourism and technology strategy.

From this report the current strategy, the National Long Term Tourism Strategy (NLTTS; Australian Government 2009b), was derived and launched in 2009. It outlined the policy framework to assist industry in achieving its vision to “continue to provide visitors with unique and unforgettable experiences” (Australian Government 2009b, p. 3). There was no action item for the Jackson report’s online capability recommendation, though one action item nominates “online distribution” as a broader part of Tourism Australia’s capacity and functions (2009, pp. 5–6). Nevertheless, one of nine Working Groups established to facilitate implementation of the Strategy action items was the Digital Distribution Working Group (DDWG), which undertook further development of the Jackson report’s digital strategy recommendation.

The DDWG consists of representatives from state and national governments and one industry association. However, no industry or academic experts are included and there has been no consultation with stakeholders who have particular knowledge, skills, and expertise, for example, academics and industry experts working in the areas of technology applications and usage. It “aims to increase the online capability of the Australian tourism industry and to encourage greater uptake by small and medium size tourism enterprises of online distribution systems” (Australian Government 2011b, p. 14). It recently broadcast its key achievements (Australian Government 2012b) as including development of the National Online Strategy for Tourism (NOST), the Going Global Action Plan, and the Tourism Operators Online Benchmarking Survey (respectively Australian Government 2011a; Australian Government 2010a, 2010b). These reports described below were commissioned from various business consultancies and continued the approach of a lack of expert stakeholder involvement.

The NOST purpose is to increase the online distribution and global visibility of Australia’s tourism product. It provided a plan for the digital enablement of the tourism industry in Australia to enable its excellence in the promotion and distribution of tourism product online (Australian Government 2011a, p. 3); the various key themes include one for digital distribution. The Going Global Action Plan was a commissioned guide to provide practical support to tourism operators in adapting to the changing environment of tourism digital distribution using new technologies (Australian Government 2010b). It supplemented this by engaging the Australian Tourism Data Warehouse (ATDW) to develop further its Tourism e-kit (ATDW 2012), which “incorporates a series of easy to consume tutorials that equips tourism operators with effective knowledge about online marketing” (ATDW 2012, p. 2). The e-kit is well regarded according to feedback from tourism operators and has had 300,000 downloads since its inception (L. Ward, ATDW CEO, personal communication, January 13, 2013).

To establish through quantitative research the extent and level of online presence and capabilities across the tourism industry in Australia as well as barriers or reasons for nonimplementation, the Tourism Operators Online Benchmarking Survey (Australian Government 2010a) was commissioned in late 2010. However, its primary sample was based on listings of the ATDW, which are not representative of the Australian tourism industry population. In general, these reports continued the government’s traditional approach and focus and were used as a basis for actioning implementation.

Several weaknesses were acknowledged in the 2011 NLTTS progress report, including industry perception that the process was government-focused and that it lacked their engagement recently, that is, since the Jackson Report and NLTS released in 2009 (Australian Government 2011b). Government to its credit recognized these weaknesses and addressed them by producing the Tourism 2020 report, which updated the NLLTS in response to ongoing challenges and emerging opportunities. It created a policy framework to “support industry growth and provide industry with the tools to compete more effectively in the global economy” (Australian Government 2011c). It heralded commencement of procurement for the development of a Knowledge Base and Online Community in the 2012 Progress Report (Australian Government 2012b). This will create an online community of industry professionals wishing to share their knowledge and ideas regarding the NOST: it may well constitute a good step in the direction of key stakeholder involvement.

In sum, over the last decade, the method used by the Australian government was less inclusive. There was initial consultation with industry and state and territory governments to identify broad trends and needs for development, followed by Government Committee work supported by general business consultancy reports to develop individual implementation areas. While there clearly have been significant achievements in addressing tourism SME online capability, such as the well-regarded educative Tourism e-kit, the outcomes of this process have two publicly acknowledged weaknesses, first in perception of its being a government process and second in omission of industry engagement. Industry feels alienated from the process and there are gaps in the agendas, perhaps because of the absence of engaging experts in the process of policy development, for example, with stakeholder network involvement. A third weakness is reliance on consultant reports which may be of little value as a basis for implementation policy, and a fourth weakness is the lack of involvement of experts, for example, in the technology industry or academia, and some key stakeholders. Finally the lack of engagement at the local destination level failed to provide any focus on the destination and its stakeholder network, as opposed to enterprises, and consequently insight into challenges such as of eDestination Marketing. (See Table 1 which summarizes the outcomes of these government strategies.)

Table 1.

Australian Government Tourism Digital Policy Outcomes 2003–2012.

Tourism White Paper: A Medium to Long Term Strategy for Tourism (Australian Government 2003)—evolved from two Government Papers based on wide consultations with industry and interest groups across Australia; focused on demand-side challenges
• Noted that “adopting and building on the use of enabling technologies is also crucial for most tourism businesses.” (p. 24) • Its focus for an e strategy was on improving online capability of SMEs	• eDestination Marketing mentioned in reference to the Australian Tourist Commission’s website australia.com
Jackson report (Australian Government 2009a, p. 2)—Steering Committee “conducted wide-ranging consultations with industry and government participants around Australia”
• 1 of 10 recommendations focused on SMEs’ online capability	• “Urgently support the acceleration of the online capability of the Australian tourism product, working with State and Territory Tourism Organisations to fund programs that expand cost-effective digital platforms for distribution and bookings and accelerate SMEs’ uptake” (p. 5)
National Long Term Tourism Strategy (NLTTS; Australian Government 2009b), derived from Jackson report and launched in 2009.
• Outlined policy framework to assist industry in achieving its vision to “continue to provide visitors with unique and unforgettable experiences” (2009b, p. 3)	• One action item nominates “online distribution” as a broader part of Tourism Australia’s capacity and functions (pp. 5–6) • No action item for the Jackson report’s online capability recommendation
Digital Distribution Working Group (DDWG)—one of nine Working Groups established by NLTTS to facilitate implementation of the Strategy action items
• DDWG undertook further development of the Jackson report’s digital strategy recommendation • Key achievements (Australian Government 2012b) were three reports commissioned from business consultancies	• “Aims to increase the online capability of the Australian tourism industry and to encourage greater uptake by small and medium size tourism enterprises of online distribution systems” (p. 14)
National Online Strategy for Tourism (NOST; Australian Government 2011a)
• Purpose is to increase the online distribution and global visibility of Australia’s tourism product	• Provided a plan for the digital enablement of the tourism industry in Australia to enable its excellence in the promotion and distribution of tourism product online, including one for digital distribution
Going Global Action Plan (Australian Government 2010b)
• Guide to provide practical support to tourism operators in adapting to the changing environment of tourism digital distribution using new technologies	• Engaged ATDW to develop further its Tourism e-kit (ATDW 2012) which “incorporates a series of easy to consume tutorials that equips tourism operators with effective knowledge about online marketing” (2012, p. 2)
Tourism Operators Online Benchmarking Survey (Australian Government 2010a)—aimed to establish through quantitative research the extent and level of online presence and capabilities across the tourism industry in Australia and barriers/reasons for nonimplementation
• Its primary sample not representative of the Australian tourism industry population
Tourism 2020 report—updated the NLLTS in response to ongoing challenges and emerging opportunities
• Created a policy framework to “support industry growth and provide industry with the tools to compete more effectively in the global economy” (p. 1)	• Commenced procurement for a Knowledge Base and Online Community in 2012 for industry wishing to share their knowledge and ideas regarding the NOST

The Australian vision of digital capability therefore needs to be inclusive of all views and expert advice possible to address the challenging future. The approach and policy threads are woven through the fabric of the various strategies, committees, and reports—initial industry consultation determining a focus on SMEs and on improvement of their online capability, followed by implementation by government committee with consultant reports to illuminate the way ahead. There needs to be more strategic focus on eDestination marketing as research suggests that marketing local tourism destinations has grown more, not less, complex in the digital age and that in both the United States and Australia, destinations have not yet adequately responded to these challenges (Yuan, Gretzel, and Fesenmaier 2003; D’Ambra and Mistilis 2010).

Method

The idea of a stakeholder network approach to envision the digital future of tourism in Australia emerged within the International Federation for Information Technology and Travel & Tourism (IFITT) Australasia Board. IFITT is a community of both academic and industry experts dedicated to the advancement of technology in the area of travel and tourism. As such, it represents an important forum for stakeholders; however, its presence is generally much stronger in Europe than in Australia. The board member who had developed the idea of bringing together a stakeholder network initiated discussions with the Department of Tourism to obtain buy-in. The Department agreed to the idea of organizing a stakeholder network forum in partnership with the ATDW. The ATDW is the national platform for digital tourism information on Australia and is a central storage and distribution facility for Australian tourism products and destinations. It was created in 2001 as a joint initiative of the government tourism organizations from all Australian States and Territories and from Tourism Australia, the national tourism destination marketing organization. ATDW is therefore a central player within the Australian tourism industry and has a strong interest in increasing Australian tourism’s digital presence.

The main workshop was convened July 12, 2012, in a meeting room in Downtown Melbourne, Victoria, a location that was deemed accessible for a majority of stakeholders. The purpose was to engage the stakeholder network in brainstorming on strategic developments needed for tourism in Australia to effectively operate as a network in the digital space. The workshop was preceded by an academic input meeting July 11 at Victoria University in Melbourne and was followed up with another academic meeting for feedback July 20 at the University of Queensland in Brisbane. The workshop started at 10:30 in the morning and ended at 5 p.m., only interrupted by short coffee breaks and lunch, and was followed by an informal networking opportunity to allow for debriefing with the stakeholders. The goal of the meeting was communicated to the stakeholders as “developing a tourism and technology strategy for tourism destinations in Australia.” The workshop was moderated by a member of the IFITT international board. Another international board member helped in facilitating the discussions. A dedicated scribe was responsible for taking notes and collecting all written materials produced by the participants.

The workshop was designed as a forum for discussion with small break-out groups to facilitate brainstorming activities and joint reflection sessions. Break-out groups were given Post-It notes for idea generation and were asked to nominate someone to report the results to the wider group. The break-out sessions were structured around the three main phases of travel: pretrip, during trip, and posttrip. The moderator presented the entire group with international benchmarks and best practice for each of the phases based on an online evaluation of international tourism destination websites to facilitate the discussions and to stimulate the debate and contextualization of international best practice to Australia.

Careful attention was given to the selection of the participants, both in terms of the invitation process and the identification of important stakeholders. The prevailing organization of the stakeholder network is the Australian Government Department of Tourism, which has ongoing responsibility for policy developing the National Online Strategy. However, the bringing together of the stakeholder network was facilitated by IFITT and ATDW. Key players in the Australian tourism and technology field were invited by ATDW and the Australasian IFITT Board to attend the workshop in order to develop a way forward for the tourism national strategy in information and communication technology for Australia as a tourism destination. The effort resulted in 39 stakeholders attending the workshop. They represent government destination marketing organizations (at the national, regional, and local level); industry (including associations, services, tour operators, information technology [IT], consultancies, research, and finance businesses), and academia (university and other educational institutions). The split was 15 government, 14 industry, and 10 academia, suggesting that all three groups had somewhat equal representation. The moderator made sure that the breakout groups included a good mix of all three types of stakeholders. Stakeholders may engage in predatory or symbiotic relationships (Fennell and Butler 2003). There was no evidence of predatory behavior during the workshop. In fact, there was a general sense of “sitting in the same boat” and needing a collaborative approach to resolve the issue that permeated all workshop discussions. Discussing best international practice focused people to the future challenges and enabled them to disregard political and administrative agendas.

The analysis is based on two sets of data: (1) documents relating to the Australian government’s efforts in the area of IT and tourism and (2) a summary that consolidated all the notes obtained during the workshop as well as the feedback received during the entire process. The comparative analysis focused on differences in the outcomes of both approaches.

Strategies in eDestination Marketing in Australia: Models of the Future e-Tourism Destination

Having discussed international best practice and how Australia at a national, state, and big city level performs against benchmarks, a lively discussion by all stakeholders resulted in identification of key requirements. As the conversation was directed to how Australia as a whole can perform better against international competitors, political and administrative agendas were dropped in favor of a longer term strategic vision. The workshops demonstrated a range of issues that participants felt are critical for the Destination Australia e-strategy. The results were categorized into strategy according to three stages of the visitor itinerary namely:

Before the trip (use technology to dream, inspire, and to inform),

During the trip (use technology to engage visitors and enhance experience in real time), and

Post trip (use technology to engage /maintain engagement of visitors and encourage user-generated content to stimulate new travelers; see Tables 2 -4).

Table 2.

Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes: Before the Trip—Use Technology to Inspire and to Inform People.

Use Technology to Inspire
Integrated images and videos
• Destination websites should facilitate use of brilliant images linked to info• Users can personalize their required information and videos• Geotagging is increasingly critical to attribute images to a destination• destinations can create a trustworthy easily accessible digital library	• User-generated content (UGC) is critical in developing image and video libraries cost-effectively and engage local photographers and communities• The semantic web can categorize images to ensure that information is appropriately aligned with potential visitor market segments
Visitor information sharing
• Sharing facilitated by destinations can inspire and bring together like-minded people, endorse the website information, and increase credibility• Users generate content to load onto destination-hosted social media	• Users can send out personalized e-cards via Facebook and mobile apps, or elf their photos to send customized inspiring information/images to their friends (books, music)
Personalization of information and images allowing destination to address their visitors as individual and groups
• Public sector organizations could offer all tourism operators the chance to develop their online capability, ultimate conversion, and yield	• Social media microsites could be examined to address personalized interests and then destinations can create clusters for particular visitors
Interactive platform management
• Destinations are challenged by the plurality of views and images as well as with the possibility of negativity• Platforms that allow user engagement must be open, adaptable, available, and able to track who, when, and what activities occur• Destination images should be managed through monitoring• Messages delivered across platforms must be clear and consistent with destination capabilities	• Integration of the online destination booking capability with channels such as TripAdvisor, Facebook, Pinterest, etc. allows image and information sharing• Tracking these channels enables destinations to identify valued hidden or iconic items with accidental insights and develop niche markets• Destinations can provide travel planning tools such as mobile maps and journey planner so visitors can plan their trip
Gamification • Invites users to engage in information exploration and “get connected” and experience the destination in advance and engage in an in-depth exploration.
Use Technology to Inform People
Maps
• Provide sample itineraries showing the attractions, routes with recommended time of travel, and adopting SimCity-like approach to add spots to user’s own itinerary priorities	• Users can rate content and build their itinerary at the same time• Geo-locating activities and attractions are critical for building itineraries
Itinerary and dynamic packaging
• A destination system could provide recommendations and routings• Visitors can have a pretrip video based on their proposed itinerary• visitors may engage with locals or fellow travelers facilitated by social media platforms such as WAYN and Tripadvisor	• The system should be humanized to guide users to make decisions• The system could identify repeat customers so information is not replicated and other attractions and activities are suggested• Pull information—QR codes and Apps like “Tripit”—could consolidate information

Table 3.

Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes: During the Trip—Use Technology to Engage.

Use Technology to Engage
Future destination marketers will manage the @destination or @brand twitter account and be responsible for interactivity with prospective and active visitors through:Connectivity—visitors may want to stay in touch with family, friends, and workmates
• To facilitate engagement, destinations need to support effective and efficient connectivity• Free WiFi now is a key selection criterion in accommodation choice and a critical factor for engaging in dialogue• Free WiFi services could be funded by the “cut of the ticket” (recommender engine) and also could be marked against marketing expenditure and telecommunications costs	• Destinations can provide cheap or free WiFi for visitors• Reduced mobile phone roaming costs for better connectivity and advances in technology too—for example, Geelong, a regional city in southeast Australia will soon convert security cameras into free WiFi spots
Social-Local-Mobile (SoLoMo) Marketing—information is contextualized and owned by the entire tourism supply community
• Visitors could pre-subscribe to location-based services/SOLOMO marketing so they could know what’s happening nearby• Standardized sets of hashtags that the tourist office distributes to operators and locals allow apps to push out information to twitter—potentially changing the way the local tourist office could be established• QR codes can also lead people to specific sites that provide context-based services, special offers, local engagement, and other value-added services• Apps could broadcast information which visitors need as well as interests via twitter with standardized hashtags to tourism operators—an expert would respond live to visitors.	• Destinations could monitor twitter and other social media for key words and provide context-based added value• Travel Siri has Geo awareness that could help visitors know “what’s on” nearby, get location special offers, and receive “what to do next” recommendations. Airline apps could be similarly synchronized to destination content; mobile guidebooks provide comprehensive local information, immediate/real-time and geography-specific information.• Airports and shopping centers could have interactive systems so visitors could gather/download required information after arrival at the destination.• GTO’s could distribute all appropriate commercial apps along with their own.
Know your visitor—any strategy should be based on fundamental knowledge of the visitor
• Recommender engines could list out best match information—“What is near” is a relative concept• Mobile coupons to meet personalized needs, in real time	• Knowing the value of time and space before showing visitors “nearby” activities is critical for creating value

Table 4.

Stakeholder Workshop Outcomes: Posttrip Engagement—Use Technology to Maintain Engagement.

Use Technology to Maintain Engagement
Personalized sharing: visitors can share their destination experiences with their social circle and beyond
• Invite visitors to upload photos onto the destination website to share their best moments with others• Enable visitors to send out electronic postcards via social media, provide free, easily created, customized e-book/e-album for their trip photos	• Use user-generated content (UGC) indicating visitor preferences and visitor perspectives to tailor the visitors’ preferred platform (for example, Facebook or Pinterest)• Send a “Thank you for coming” message to visitors after their trip and an anniversary reminder
Engagement: visitors become advocates and ambassadors for the destination
• Engage visitors to talk to other users and ask them for their opinion so that it is globally accessible• Invite visitors to participate in competitions such as photography competitions, show their blogs/e-book to the others. Invite them to special private events that happen to encourage engagement• Education tourism—cast a wider net• Look beyond the idea of traditional visitors to visiting academics, university alumni (via their social networks)	• Respond to all comments and recommendations in UGC and social media• Reward and incentivize to encourage communication of visitors to others by giving discounts for bookings• Encourage international students to engage with the destination as they have much local knowledge

Tourism Australia suggested a strategic aim of the 40/20/40 rule, reporting research by American Express that showed how much enjoyment there was in each phase of the purchase cycle, namely, 40% enjoyment from preholiday, 20% enjoyment during the holiday, and 40% enjoyment after the holiday. In analyzing if these proportions are applicable, the question posed was how much marketing budget an organization spends on the three different phases.

By way of note, Australia and most destinations around the world typically focus on pretrip campaigns, neglecting in-trip and posttrip opportunities so this categorization itself represents an innovative approach.

In terms of the outcomes for the “use technology to inspire” part of the “Before the Trip” stage of the itinerary, there were five subcategories. First there was a strong plea to destinations that Images and Videos must be integrated into a comprehensive message to reinforce the destination brand and display a coherent image. The second outcome was that information sharing by intending visitors must be actively supported for example by Social Media and destination systems with e-mail and share buttons. Third, the point was made that personalization of information and images allows destinations to know their visitors as individuals and groups, which in turn is a valuable input for destinations to plan, manage, and market. For example, the Tourism Australia Facebook page has 3.2 million followers, containing a wealth of information to harvest. There was also much discussion around how perhaps public sector organizations could support tourism operators to develop their online capability, ultimately increasing conversion and yield for the entire destination. Fourth, regarding interactive platform management, analysis requires application to all digital platforms of government tourism organizations, not just destination websites. If they allow user engagement, it must be open, adaptable, and available and be able to track who, when, and what activities occur. Tracking these channels enables destinations to identify valued hidden or iconic items with accidental insights and develop niche markets. They can provide travel planning tools such as mobile maps. Fifth, gamification is a new method to develop inspiring and engaging content online as it invites users to engage in information exploration and “get connected” to the destination.

There were two parts in the “Use Technology to Inform People” section, first regarding the provision of maps, which are critical for informing people and organizing experiences: users can rate content and build their itinerary at the same time, preferably using geo-locating activities and attractions which are critical for building itineraries. Second, regarding itinerary and dynamic packaging, the discussion focused on how visitors may engage with locals or fellow travelers facilitated by social media platforms such as WAYN and TripAdvisor; there was also a discussion on pull information—QR codes and Apps like “Tripit”—and how technology could consolidate information. See Table 2 for a more detailed listing of outcomes.

In terms of the outcomes for the “During the Trip” stage of the itinerary, there were three subcategories in use of technology to engage. It was suggested that a more hands-on approach and a greater proactive engagement of visitors are required using innovative technologies and that government destination organizations need to be proactive in engaging with visitors at the destination. Real-time services will emerge rapidly as visitors require information, advice, assistance, and recommendations relevant at that particular minute. The facilitator strongly emphasized that future destination marketers will manage the @destination or @brand twitter account and be responsible for visitor interactivity through Connectivity, Social-Local-Mobile (SoLoMo) Marketing, and Know your Customer. Stakeholders were encouraged to nominate elements that contribute to the entire system in order to enhance the tourism experience of visitors in a comprehensive way. Connectivity is critical for visitors, and to facilitate engagement, destinations need to support effective and efficient connectivity, for example, with cheap or free WiFi for visitors and reduced mobile phone roaming costs. An example is Geelong, a regional city in southeast Australia that will soon convert security cameras into free WiFi spots. The comments related to these aspects also made it clear that telecommunications companies are important players to include in the stakeholder network.

Second Social-Location-Mobile (SoLoMo) Marketing occurs when information is contextualized and owned by the entire tourism supply community. SoLoMo is an emerging major tool for innovative destination marketing referring to a mobile-centric version of the addition of local entries to search engine results, as a result of the growing popularity of smart phones, and provides greater local precision to search engine results than those via a PC. Standardized sets of hashtags allow apps to push out information to twitter; QR codes and near-field communication (NFC) can also lead people to specific sites that provide context-based services; and mobile apps could broadcast information to visitors. For example, Travel Siri has Geo awareness that could help visitors know “what’s on” nearby, get location special offers, and receive “what to do next” recommendations. Third, it was important to “Know your visitor,” and any strategy should include the fundamentals and provide brochures and coupons to meet personalized needs, in real time. See Table 3 for a more detailed listing of outcomes.

In Terms of Outcomes for the “Posttrip Engagement—Use Technology to Maintain Engagement” stage of the itinerary, three groupings were discussed. First, personalized sharing, where visitors share their destination experiences with their social circle and beyond, enabling their sending out electronic postcards via social media through providing free, easily created, customized e-books/e-albums for their trip photos. Second, Engagement was discussed where visitors become advocates and ambassadors for the destination by talking to other users and asking their opinions—but destinations must respond to all comments. Third, Education Tourism was identified as critical for a future-oriented strategy, which must cast a wider net by looking beyond the idea of traditional visitors to visiting academics, university alumni (via their social networks). See Table 4 for a more detailed listing of outcomes.

The benchmarking results discussed during the stakeholder network workshop showed that Australia’s performance as an online destination appears to be above average and may be considered as best practice example for various factors (Buhalis and Wagner 2013). However, like most destinations around the world, it is still underutilizing available technologies and applications that inspire, inform, promote, facilitate, engage, and share with actual and potential visitors, before, after, and particularly during the trip. The stakeholders were able to discuss how they combine new ideas and use different technologies and applications to improve the destination’s online presence. Lessons for Australian destinations therefore consist of creating an increase in the interactivity within the website and bringing together a variety of tools such as transport, trip, and itinerary planners in order to create one-stop shops for visitors. Through the growing importance of social media, online destinations really need to implement news feeds and integrate their social media channels in the website. In addition, virtual reality applications can really increase the transparency of the tourism product.

The eDestinations of the future will need to coordinate the tourism supply side and engage consumers in the delivery and cocreation of value. For the future, Australian eDestinations will need to be proactive and reactive in using the range of emerging technological capabilities to engage with visitors before, during, and after their trip. They need to coordinate tourism supply and create clusters that address specific themes and engage consumers in delivery and cocreation of value. There are many future opportunities and challenges: technology enabling strategic marketing agility will be rewarded in destination management for all organizations globally.

The workshop methodology drove wide-ranging outcomes that appear to reflect the diversity of expertise of the stakeholder network members harnessed in a very productive way through the interaction. It also showed a complex combination of innovation, new technologies, and new applications of them—in short, a glimpse of eDestination Marketing for the future. This destination focus is fundamentally important to any eStrategy for tourism, and a comprehensive future eDestination strategy will be critical of Australia as a tourism destination.

Futures Stakeholders Network

The workshop methodology complements previous government approaches used for Australia over the last decade and enables more stakeholder engagement. As technology increasingly requires the amalgamation of information, experiences, and products toward contextualized offerings, this approach will enable the tourism industry to work in harmony and develop its competitiveness. The outcomes for the workshop show a great deal of eTourism futuring and innovation and the government is required to take a leadership role in coordinating all efforts from stakeholders.

The outcomes of the government approach appear to reflect a focus on a supportive or educational role to increase tourism SME e-capability. It further needs to position the e-capability to a vision of the future. A futures stakeholder network workshop focusing on the e-tourism SME could also provide input into the process, making it more inclusive.

What is needed for a more prescient strategy is some combination of the two approaches. If as Hage, Leroy, and Petersen (2010) suggested, the core business of the relevant government agency was to produce and integrate scientifically robust and policy-relevant knowledge; then the question of knowledge and process ownership is raised. The Australian and indeed any Department of Tourism needs to function as a catalyst for bringing together all stakeholder networks and disseminate e-knowledge and support the coordination of the entire network using agile and adaptable technologies. The government should take on a coordinating role, assigning strategy to their stakeholder networks and supporting the coherent engagement with its publics at large.

Conclusions

A successful digital strategy is absolutely critical for Australia’s future as a tourism destination; therefore, a more inclusive approach that allows for successful strategy development is extremely important. The workshop outcomes demonstrated that the expertise for futuring digital strategy is present in Australia and needs to be harnessed in a productive way. Perhaps the Australian Government could redefine its role in strategy development as that of tertius iungens—uniting disconnected key stakeholders into networks that could enhance the process, that is assuming a coordinating role. The tourism digital strategy needs mechanisms for futuring that allow new stakeholders to enter into and participate in the process at any time.

Stakeholder theory leaves open the question of “how stakeholder management should best be implemented as an organizational strategy in a particular context” (Garrod et al. 2012, p. 1160): organizations must engage in an ongoing relationship with their stakeholder groups. The workshop was the first of its kind and provided valuable future strategic direction for Australia in one aspect of tourism and technology. How management of this futures stakeholder network is integrated into the Australian Department of Tourism strategy for tourism and technology is still unfolding and will to a significant degree determine the success of the future e-tourism Destination Australia.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Nina Mistilis, PhD, is a senior lecturer in tourism management at UNSW, Sydney. Her current research focuses on information and communication technology and tourism management and on tourism policy and planning. Prior to entering academia she held senior policy positions in industry.

Dimitrios Buhalis, PhD, is a Professor in tourism Director of the eTourism Lab and Deputy Director of the International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research, at Bournemouth University in England. His research focuses on eTourism, management of tourism distribution channels, and strategic tourism marketing and management

Ulrike Gretzel, PhD, is an associate professor at the Institute for Innovation in Business and Social Research University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. Her research focuses on persuasion in human-technology interaction, the representation of sensory and emotional aspects of tourism experiences, and issues related to the development and use of intelligent systems in tourism.

References

Aligica

P. D.

(2003). “Prediction, Explanation and the Epistemology of Future Studies.” Futures, 35 (10): 1027-1040.

Amer

Daim

T. U.

Jetter

(2013). “A Review of Scenario Planning.” Futures, 46:23-40.

Australian Government. (2003). Tourism White Paper: A Medium to Long Term Strategy for Tourism. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Government. (2009a). The Jackson Report on Behalf of the Steering Committee Informing the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/documents/tmc/jackson-report-july09.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

Australian Government. (2009b). National Long-Term Tourism Strategy. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/documents/tmc/dret%20tourism%20strategy.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

Australian Government. (2010a). Tourism Operators Online Capabilities Benchmark Survey 2010 Research Report. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tmc/Digital%20Distribution%20Working%20Group%20-%20Benchmark%20Survey%202010.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

Australian Government. (2010b). Going Global an Action Plan to Adapt to the Changing Tourism Distribution Landscape. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/nltts/Going-Global-Action-Plan-Updated23Nov2011.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

Australian Government. (2011a). National Online Tourism Strategy. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/nltts/NOST.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

Australian Government. (2011b). National Long-Term Tourism Strategy (NLTTS) Progress Report 2011. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/documents/nltts/2020/nltts-annual-report-dec11.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

10.

Australian Government. (2011c). Tourism 2020. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/nltts/2020/tourism-2020-strategy.pdf (accessed July 1, 2012).

11.

Australian Government. (2012a). Tourism 2020 Progress Report October 2012. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/nltts/2020/Tourism2020ProgressReport-Oct12.pdf (accessed December 7, 2012).

12.

Australian Government. (2012b). Digital Distribution Working Group. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/policies/nltts/workinggrps/digital/Pages/default.aspx (accessed December 12, 2012)

13.

ATDW (Australian Tourism Data Warehouse). (2012). Tourism e kit September 2012. Brisbane: Australian Tourism Data Warehouse. http://www.atdw.com.au/tourismekit.aspx (accessed October 29, 2012).

14.

Bergman

Karlsson

J. C.

Axelsson

(2010). “Truth Claims and Explanatory Claims—An Ontological Typology of Futures Studies.” Futures, 42 (8): 857-65.

15.

Beritelli

Laesser

(2011). Power dimensions and influence reputation in tourist destinations: Empirical evidence from a network of actors and stakeholders. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1299-1309

16.

Buhalis

(2000). “Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future.” Tourism Management, 21 (1): 97-116.

17.

Buhalis

Licata

(2002). “The Future of eTourism Intermediaries.” Tourism Management, 23 (3): 207-20.

18.

Buhalis

Wagner

(2013). “E-destinations: Global Best Practice in Tourism Technologies and Applications.” In ENTER 2013 Proceedings, Innsbruck, edited by Cantoni

Xiang

Wien: Springer-Verlag, pp. 119-30.

19.

Caffyn

Jobbins

(2003). “Governance Capacity and Stakeholder Interactions in the Development and Management of Coastal Tourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13 (2): 224-45.

20.

Cole

Razak

(2009). “Tourism as Future.” Futures, 41 (6): 335-45.

21.

Carlsson-Kanyama

Dreborg

K. H.

Moll

H. C.

Padovan

(2008). “Participative Backcasting: A Tool for Involving Stakeholders in Local Sustainability Planning.” Futures, 40 (1): 34-46.

22.

Dale

(2003). “The Competitive Networks of Tourism e-Mediaries: New Strategies, New Advantages.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (2): 109-18.

23.

D’Ambra

Mistilis

(2010). “Assessing the E-Capability of Visitor Information Centers.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (2): 206-15.

24.

D’Angella

F. M.

(2009). “Tale of Two Cities’ Collaborative Tourism Marketing: Towards a Theory of Destination Stakeholder Assessment. Tourism Management, 30 (3): 429-440

25.

Dwyer

Edwards

Mistilis

Roman

Scott

(2009). “Destination and Enterprise Management for a Tourism Future.” Tourism Management, 30 (1): 63-74.

26.

Fennell

D. A.

Butler

R. W.

(2003). “A Human Ecological Approach to Tourism Interactions.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 5 (3): 197-210.

27.

Floyd

(2008). “Towards an Integral Renewal of Systems Methodology for Futures Studies.” Futures, 40 (2): 138-49.

28.

Formica

Kothari

T. H.

(2008). “Strategic Destination Planning: Analyzing the Future of Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (4): 355-67.

29.

Freeman

R. E.

(2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Garriga

(2009). “Cooperation in Stakeholder Networks: Firms’ ‘Tertius Iungens’ Role.” Journal of Business Ethics, 90 (4): 623-37.

31.

Garrod

Fyall

Leask

Reid

(2012). “Engaging Residents as Stakeholders of the Visitor Attraction.” Tourism Management, 33:1159-73.

32.

Goodier

Austin

Soetanto

Dainty

(2010). “Causal Mapping and Scenario Building with Multiple Organisations.” Futures, 42 (3): 219-29.

33.

Grängsjö

F. Y.

Gummesson

(2006). “Hotel Networks and Social Capital in Destination Marketing.” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17 (1): 58-75.

34.

Gretzel

Fesenmaier

D. R.

Formica

O’Leary

J. T.

(2006). “Searching for the Future: Challenges Faced by Destination Marketing Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (2): 116-26.

35.

Gretzel

Yuan

Fesenmaier

D. R.

(2000). “Preparing for the New Economy: Advertising Strategies and Change in Destination Marketing Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (2): 146-56.

36.

Hage

Leroy

Petersen

A. C.

(2010). “Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Knowledge Production.” Futures, 42 (3): 254-64.

37.

Hall

(1999). “Rethinking Collaboration and Partnership: A Public Policy Perspective.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7 (3): 274-89.

38.

Hjalager

A.-M.

(2010). “A Review of Innovation Research in Tourism.” Tourism Management, 31:1-12.

39.

Jones

T. M.

Wicks

A. C.

(1999). “Convergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 206-221.

40.

Lemmetyinen

(2009). “The Key Capabilities Required for Managing Tourism Business Networks.” Tourism Management, 30:31-40.

41.

March

Wilkinson

(2009). Conceptual tools for evaluating tourism partnerships. Tourism Management, 30(3), 455-462.

42.

Mistilis

Daniele

(2004). “Challenges for Competitive Strategy in Public and Private Sector Partnerships in Electronic National Tourist Destination Marketing Systems.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17 (4): 63-73.

43.

Mitchell

Agle

Wood

(1997). “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of Management Review, 22:853-86.

44.

Morgan

(2011). “Beyond Epistemological Pluralism: Towards an Integrated Vision of the future.” Futures, 43 (8): 809-19.

45.

McCabe

Sharples

Foster

(2012). “Stakeholder Engagement in the Design of Scenarios of Technology-enhanced Tourism Services.” Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 36-44.

46.

Morgan

N. J.

Pritchard

Piggott

(2003). “Destination Branding and the Role of the Stakeholders: The Case of New Zealand.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (3): 285-299.

47.

Neville

Menguc

(2006). “Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders.” Journal of Business Ethics, 66 (4): 377-91.

48.

Paracchinia

Pacini

Jones

Pérez-Sobad

(2011). “An Aggregation Framework to Link Indicators Associated with Multifunctional Land Use to the Stakeholder Evaluation of Policy Options.” Ecological Indicators, 11:71-80.

49.

Quist

Vergragt

(2006). “Past and Future of Backcasting: The Shift to Stakeholder Participation and a Proposal for a Methodological Framework.” Futures, 38 (9): 1027-45.

50.

Sautter

Leisen

(1999). “Managing Stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model.” Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2): 312-28.

51.

Scott

Baggio

Cooper

(2008). Network Analysis and Tourism: From Theory to Practice. Clevedon: Channel View.

52.

Sheehan

L. R.

Ritchie

J. R.

(2005). “Destination Stakeholders Exploring Identity and Salience.” Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (3): 711-734.

53.

Sircar

Sage

Goodier

Fussey

Dainty

(2013). “Constructing Resilient Futures: Integrating UK Multi-stakeholder Transport and Energy Resilience for 2050.” Futures, 49:49-63.

54.

Smith

R. A.

Vesga

D. R.

Cadena

A. I.

Boman

Larsen

Dyner

(2005). “Energy Scenarios for Colombia: Process and Content.” Futures, 37 (1): 1-17.

55.

Soetanto

Dainty

A. R.

Goodier

C. I.

Austin

S. A.

(2011). “Unravelling the Complexity of Collective Mental Models: A Method for Developing and Analysing Scenarios in Multi-organisational Contexts.” Futures, 43 (8): 890-907.

56.

Sundaram

A. K.

Inkpen

A. C.

(2004). “The Corporate Objective Revisited. Organization Science, 15 (3): 350-363.

57.

Rowley

(1997). “Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences.” Academy of Management Review, 22 (4): 887-910.

58.

Tkaczynski

Rundle-Thiele

S. R.

Beaumont

(2009). “Segmentation: A Tourism Stakeholder View.” Tourism Management, 30:169-75.

59.

van den Hove

(2007). “A Rationale for Science-Policy Interfaces.” Futures, 39 (7): 807-26.

60.

Van Notten

P. W.

Rotmans

van Asselt

Rothman

D. S.

(2003). “An Updated Scenario Typology.” Futures, 35 (5): 423-43.

61.

Waligo

Clarke

Hawkins

(2012). “Implementing Sustainable Tourism: A Multi-stakeholder Involvement Management Framework.” Tourism Management, 36:342-353.

62.

Wong

E. P.

Mistilis

Dwyer

(2011). “A Framework for Analyzing Intergovernmental Collaboration–The Case of ASEAN Tourism.” Tourism Management, 32(2): 367-376.

63.

Wray

(2011). “Adopting and Implementing a Transactive Approach to Sustainable Tourism Planning: Translating Theory into Practice.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (4-5): 605-627.

64.

Yeoman

Rebecca

Mars

Wouters

(2012). 2050-Tomorrow's Tourism. Bristol: Channel View.

65.

Yuan

Y.-L.

Gretzel

Fesenmaier

(2003). “Internet Technology Use by American Convention and Visitors Bureaus.” Journal of Travel Research, 41 (3): 240-55.

66.

Zach

Racherla

(2011). “Assessing the Value of Collaborations in Tourism Networks: A Case Study of Elkhart County, Indiana.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28 (1): 97-110.