Abstract
This article presents a study that investigates the organizational transformation of regional tourism in Western Australia in order to make it fit for future. In principle, it explores how the past influences adaptation to upcoming challenges in the Asia-Pacific region (and beyond), such as for example reorganizing territorial dimensions in destination management. Specifically, the article considers how an imposed merger of two previously separate tourism regions affects the established communication and collaboration structures among stakeholders. To analyze the inhibiting force of historically grown destination network structures and the potential for changing these networks, the article combines the concepts of path dependence/path creation and stasis-based/change-based momentum with a quantitative social network analysis. The study provides evidence of remarkable persistence of destination networks. However, the study exhibits also path-creating processes: A transformation of destination networks to meet future challenges in tourism seems to depend largely on an effective governance of informal communication.
Keywords
Introduction
The future of the tourism sector, in the entire Asia-Pacific region, will face both significant continuous change processes and frequent sudden transformations (Amelung and Nicholls 2014; Ruhanen and Shakeela 2013; Ruhanen, Mclennan, and Moyle 2013). Among them will be climate-related aspects and natural disasters as well as the more continuous changes concerning increased outbound travel from the region’s countries and changing travel patterns due to increased travel experience (Dwyer et al. 2009; World Tourism Organization 2014). These trends offer opportunities for promoting tourism in the region, but they at the same time may undermine some of its qualities. To remain successful, it is imperative that destinations are receptive to emerging challenges and that any response to externally triggered developments is based on considerations of network dynamics in destinations and the active participation of destination stakeholders.
Likely, Australia will be particularly exposed to and have a particular role in shaping the future of tourism in the Asia-Pacific region. It hosts some of the most developed tourist destinations of this part of the world and needs to deal already with issues that are characteristic of stages of maturity (Ruhanen, Mclennan, and Moyle 2013; Tourism Australia 2011a). Therefore, it is an advanced laboratory for the development of tourism and destination management in the Asia-Pacific region. Being quite mature, it is in a position to profit from increased outbound travel in this macro region and thus has opportunities to relaunch its status as a primary tourist-receiving country (Tourism Australia 2011b; World Tourism Organization 2013b); on the other hand it will face increasing competition from developing destinations in the vicinity. Thus, on its way to relaunch from flattening phases, Australia can become a litmus test for the adaptability of tourism management in the fast-changing environment of the Asia-Pacific. This might include challenges such as dealing with different visions of future and choosing among varying development approaches, switching from a spot-oriented tourism development to a more balanced one (that includes also the hinterland areas) and joining forces and resources to remain visible on an international level in a context of increased competition among neighbors.
The state of Western Australia (WA) faces some of these challenges in an even more pronounced way. Because of its current resource and mining boom, WA experiences a clash of development paths: on the one hand, industrial development receives strong government support and raises concerns about labour shortages and increased pressure on the State’s natural environment, including some of its iconic destinations; on the other hand, WA has the potentical for a second-wave tourism development approach that extends beyond the major centers and hot spots to its more remote regions. Moreover, WA is also particularly vulnerable to environmental threats, from climate change to natural disasters (see Amelung and Nicholls 2014; Brueckner et al. 2014; Ritchie et al. 2014; Tourism WA 2012). Transformation processes in WA can thus be considered a relevant case study for analyzing some aspects concerning the future of tourism in the Asia-Pacific.
To increase the flexibility and adaptability of destination management, future challenges may require extending or at least reorganizing destination management, its associated regional networks, and the entitled mediators (destination management organizations) (Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser 2013; Gretzel et al. 2006; von Bergner and Lohmann 2013; Wu and Carson 2008). Therefore, restructuring the regional organization of tourism, in particular increasing the size of destinations and altering their boundaries toward better implementing a functional perspective, is becoming a more and more prominent option in tourism policy all over the world and will likely be among the critical issues that shape the future of tourism in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. In particular, organizational and governance adaptations seem crucial to ensure the future competitiveness of tourism destinations and the political attention to the sector in a clash of development perspectives. In the past, institutional arrangements for managing regional tourism were mostly defined by political and administrative units traditionally based on geographical areas. Political and administrative regional boundaries are artificial and may mean little to tourists, so there is a need to define the regional organization of tourism not so much based on existing administrative boundaries but by tourism demand and supply characteristics (Hall 2007; Pforr 2007b).
These changes in the organization of tourism are mainly driven by the need to enhance international competitiveness through proactive destination management and marketing (Botti, Goncalves, and Ratsimbanierana 2012; Croes 2011; Crouch 2011; Kozak and Rimmington 1999; Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Globalization, individualized lifestyles and travel patterns, high mobility, and the importance of economic networks create tension between functional and territorial perspectives, which has implications for regional tourism policy and planning (Dredge 1999, 2006; Fürst 2002; Pforr 2007a; Yeoman, Greenwood, and McMahon-Beattie 2009). These tensions are likely to become particularly relevant in the expanding context of tourism in the Asia-Pacific. Whereas thus far, in many of the countries of the area, tourism has concentrated either on domestic travel or to principal spots, the increasing outbound travel in this area will lead to a greater dispersion of international tourist to the hinterland, to second-order spots, and requires these regions to be prepared to manage these tourist flows for the benefit of all stakeholders involved.
In an attempt to better tap into such international and interstate markets, WA, for instance, in 2004 reduced its 11 tourism regions with 10 Regional Tourism Associations (RTAs) to only 5 tourism zones with 5 Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs). The case study presented in this article focuses on issues surrounding the amalgamation of the two former tourist regions South West (SW) and Great Southern (GS) into Australia’s South West (ASW) tourism zone. It is important in this context to note that while ASW has now been in operation for a number of years, the main aim of this study was not to assess changing network dynamics over time but to specifically focus on the transition period from “old” to “new” structures and to analyze how these networks responded to a changing environment. We believe that our study provides not only interesting insights into theory regarding the transformation of destination networks but has also potential practical relevance for many similar processes of change in the organization of regional tourism in other destinations. We suppose that such transformation processes will become more and more urgent as international tourism in the Asia-Pacific increases, and their governance will be an undeniable success factor for the future of tourism in the the Asia-Pacific region.
While theoretically reconfigurations of destination networks appear very promising, they often present unexpected difficulties. The same is the case for the particular example of Western Australia. Why do such organizational transformation processes at a destination level often lead to unanticipated difficulties? And how might these be dealt with in a sustainable manner? With its case study, the article aims to contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of networking and collaboration in tourism destinations in order to improve the governance of network transformations and to assist destinations in dealing with changing conditions in the form of an “external shock,” in our case example an imposed merger of two tourism regions in Western Australia.
A growing body of literature addresses complex destination governance issues that take into particular consideration the network structure of tourism destinations (e.g., Erkuş-Öztürk and Eraydın 2010; Franch, Martini, and Buffa 2010; Pforr 2006; Saraniemi and Kylänen 2011). Organizational issues, governance, and especially network governance are also primary concerns from a futures studies perspective (Feldman 2012; Rodríguez Díaz 2009; Tonn 2012; van der Steen et al. 2011). In particular, analyses of transformational governance (Cole and Razak 2009) can contribute to our understanding of the future of tourism in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. However, few scholars have analyzed possibilities and limits of governance of organizational transformations at a destination network level (Baggio and Sainaghi 2011; Bramwell 2005; Zahra and Ryan 2007). Therefore, it is still unclear how a transformation of historically grown destination networks can be implemented and, thus, how a merger of tourism regions like that explored in the Western Australia case example, but also elsewhere, can lead to sustainable success.
To expand knowledge about potentials and limits of dynamic destination governance, the study scrutinizes the role of established network constellations among tourism actors in the context of a redefinition of the regional organization of tourism. By applying the concepts of path dependence/path creation (David 1985; Garud and Karnøe 2001) and stasis-based/change-based momentum (Amburgey and Miner 1992; Jansen 2004), the potential for “network innovation” as well as the inhibiting force of existing organizational structures are analyzed. The article provides an original contribution by linking a quantitative social network analysis (SNA) with a dynamic path creation/path dependence perspective. In particular, the study gathers detailed insights into network transformation dynamics by differentiating between formal collaboration and informal communication mechanisms, as well as between different types of actors and subnetworks. The study’s findings suggest that the consideration of network development paths, organizational positions (e.g., Board membership), means of communication, as well as power-related issues is essential for a better understanding of opportunities and limits to the governance of network transformations in tourism destinations.
In what follows, we review the relevant literature on the future challenges of destination management and governance in the Asia-Pacific and beyond as well as on the concepts of path dependence/path creation and stasis-based/change-based momentum in combination with quantitative social network analysis. This will form the requisite background for the ensuing analysis of the organizational transformation of regional tourism in the southwest of Western Australia.
Literature Review
The Future of Destination Governance in the Asia-Pacific (and Beyond)
As mentioned above, strong and turbulent forces—mostly beyond the control of the tourism industries (see Ritchie et al. 2014)—increasingly affect tourism demand in the Asia Pacific region and make extensive adaptation processes necessary (Dwyer et al. 2009). To meet these future challenges and to match growing and changing tourism demand, destination management and its organizational crystallization point (i.e., the DMO) require reconceptualization (Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser 2013; Gretzel et al. 2006). Overall, researchers identify overly static approaches to destination management as a shortcoming and ask for increased flexibility and adaptability to better meet a highly fragmented and dynamic demand (Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser 2013; Gretzel et al. 2006; von Bergner and Lohmann 2013; Wu and Carson 2008). While theoretically valid, the practicability of this request for flexibility is challenged by at least three elements: (1) the inertia of organizational structures and social ties (Hannan and Freeman 1984; North 1990; DiMaggio and Powell 1991); (2) the embeddedness of destination networks in an arena of political influence and continuous attempts to transformation (Dredge and Jenkins 2012; Pforr 2006; Shaw and Williams 2004; Volgger and Pechlaner 2014); and (3) the complexity and poly-vocality of the supply side including conflicting targets among destination stakeholders (Ryan 2002; Saraniemi and Kylänen 2011).
To put it bluntly, the call for adaptability and variability of destination management (in spatial and social dimensions) may remain only of theoretical value if it is not possible to implement it practically. Therefore, understanding transformation processes of destination networks is of critical importance to engage in structural and procedural adaptations to meet the future challenges in the expanding tourism context of the Asia Pacific region. This is in line with the call for strengthening adaptive and networking capabilities in DMOs to deal with continuous change (Dwyer et al. 2009; Formica and Kothari 2008; Gretzel et al. 2006; Ryan 2002; Wang and Xiang 2007).
The Asia Pacific region’s dynamic tourism environment augments the critical importance of the above issues. The region is growing in importance both as an inbound and an outbound tourism region (World Tourism Organization 2013a). Australia is embedded in this framework and is in a position to potentially profit from these dynamics. However, if not managed proactively in such a fast-growing market, the role of destination management as well as the identity and business logic of DMOs may change rapidly: They may tend to follow a growth focus and boosterist approach that primarily responds to private business stakeholders and dominant powers rather than following a territorial perspective with broad stakeholder involvement (see Airey and Chong 2011; Airey and Ruhanen 2013). Being confronted with limited funds and a growing concentration of power in tourism subsectors (Dwyer et al. 2009), this might be seen as a rational behavior and one that offers continued justification for the existence of DMOs. However, a strong entrepreneurial orientation of DMOs raises power issues and might come at the expense of a sustainable yield focus (Dwyer et al. 2009), especially if accompanied by a traditional Australian tourism “marketing mentality” as opposed to a “management mentality” (Ruhanen, Mclennan, and Moyle 2013).
Change-Oriented Approaches in Network Governance and Destination Governance
In the literature, the importance of network structures of tourism destinations is increasingly recognized (Dredge 2006; Pavlovich 2003; Pforr 2006; Tinsley and Lynch 2001). In particular, research on destination governance, destination competitiveness, and destination stakeholder involvement has paid attention to the benefits of community orientation (e.g., sustainable development) but also to the complexity involved in steering and managing networks of a multiplicity of destination stakeholders (Bramwell and Lane 2011; Crouch 2011; Laws et al. 2011; Nordin and Svensson 2007; Pechlaner, Raich, and Beritelli 2010; Raich 2006; Sautter and Leisen 1999; Simpson 2001; Timothy 1998, 1999; Williams and Lawson 2001). In the context of destination governance, authors discuss possibilities for orchestrating destination networks from a viewpoint of tourism organizations and destination management organizations (DMOs) as well as preconditions for promoting interorganizational cooperation (Beritelli 2011; Pechlaner and Volgger 2012; Pechlaner, Volgger, and Herntrei 2012; Song, Liu, and Chen 2013). Transaction costs, principal-agent problems, fuzzy property rights, as well as power relations, for example, are major challenges that need to be dealt with in such a network context (Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser 2007; Demsetz 1967; Dredge and Jenkins 2007; Jensen and Meckling 1976; Williamson 1979, 1999).
Except for some recent attempts to incorporate dynamism in analyses of destination competitiveness (e.g., Croes 2011), the consideration of dynamic aspects in destination networks as well as the governance of their transformation appears underrepresented in the tourism literature. This may seem paradoxical, since evolutionary approaches that consider sustainability and carrying capacity in tourist destination development are fundamental aspects within the field of tourism studies (see Bardolet and Sheldon 2008; O’Reilly 1986; Saarinen 2006; Wall 1982). In particular, the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) (Butler 1980) and its various extensions (Butler 2006a, 2006b) have frequently been cited in this regard. But the TALC concept is not without criticism, especially regarding its underlying assumptions of universality and linearity (Agarwal 1997; Harrison 1995; Papatheodorou 2004). Nevertheless, recently Weaver (2012) has proposed another universal development path for tourist destinations arguing that most tourist destinations converge toward a stage of “sustainable mass tourism.”
Whatever explanatory power these linear models may offer, they are of limited relevance to future tourism policy in practice. Their reduced practical applicability is to a great extent caused by their failure to fully address the governance of transformations. Under what conditions and by using which instruments is a governance of destination development possible? Based on the seminal work of Bieger (1998), Beritelli and Reinhold (2010) analyze the decision behaviour in DMO change processes and find that such processes are characterized by high complexity and mutual influences. Consequently, they present the garbage can model (Cohen, March, and Olsen 1972) as a useful tool for analyzing such partially “anarchical” transformation processes. As analogically argued by complexity science theory, to better understand the governability of change in tourism planning, it is essential to consider the complexity and systemic dynamics of destinations as well as their internal and external power relations (Baggio and Sainaghi 2011; Harrison 1995; Laws and Prideaux 2005; Russell and Faulkner 2004; Saraniemi and Kylänen 2011; Zahra and Ryan 2007). Indeed, strict opposition to linearity and universality in development approaches is a major characteristic of complexity science contributions. For instance, Peeters (2012), in response to Weaver (2012), argues convincingly that sometimes (such as in the case of Las Vegas) it can simply be quite late for turning on a universal path toward sustainable mass tourism. In other words, to better understand, govern, and predict the development of specific destinations, a certain degree of dependence on the specific historical path must be considered.
On the other hand, however, despite being increasingly aware of the complex nature of destination development, few tourism scholars try to link a historical approach explicitly with a network perspective (Bramwell 2005, 2011; Paget, Dimanche, and Mounet 2010; Pavlovich 2003; Tinsley and Lynch 2001; van der Duim 2007). Instead, research on destination governance and destination networks focuses primarily on network structures and relations on specific points in time and, thus, neglects the historical perspective (Erkuş-Öztürk and Eraydın 2010; Franch, Martini, and Buffa 2010; Pforr 2006; Presenza and Cipollina 2010). In short, what is missing from the current debate is the consequent application of a development perspective to destination networks.
The emerging field of futures studies, which is engaged with different kinds of transformations as well as possible, probable, and desirable futures, considers networks as greatly relevant in future (inter-)organizational governance (Feldman 2012; Rodríguez Díaz 2009; van der Steen et al. 2011). Networks are considered future-proof for their capability to span boundaries (Feldman 2012) and for being compatible with new information and communication technologies (Tonn and Stiefel 2012; Waite 2012). Yet, a tangible combination of network analysis with a dynamic point of view that reflects both on liquefying and rigidifying characteristics of networks is also rare in this set of studies.
Combining network analysis with futures research could provide at least three benefits (Rodríguez Díaz 2009): First, it may improve predictions about the future by identifying prominent and powerful actors. Second, by combining network analysis with scenario-building technique, network transformations may be modeled. Third, mixing futures studies with network analysis offers mechanisms to construct desirable futures. Indeed, dynamic social network analysis facilitates implementing desired future situations by strengthening certain parts of a network. Clearly, this includes political challenges because change may collide with present distributions of power (van der Steen et al. 2011). It is exactly in this third sense of shaping the future of social networks and of tackling the challenges involved in it that the present study merges a dynamic view on power issues with network analysis, and thereby contributes to better understanding the future of tourism destinations.
Inhibitors of Change: Path Dependence
Interestingly, many of the above-cited conceptualizations of the dynamics involved in tourist destinations (particularly those related to complexity science) tend to overestimate the extent of change (Baggio and Sainaghi 2011; Laws and Prideaux 2005; Russell and Faulkner 2004). It seems that these approaches do not fully account for the resilience of tourism networks and their continuity in history (see also Zahra and Ryan 2007).
Several concepts have been developed to denote the fact that history may inhibit organizational innovation and change of established institutional patterns, for example, structural inertia (Hannan and Freeman 1984) or institutional persistence (DiMaggio and Powell 1991; North 1990). Among the most influential of these concepts is path dependence. It received a great deal of attention especially with regard to studies of the persistence of the QWERTY keyboard standard—regardless of the availability of more efficient alternatives (David 1985). Broadly speaking, path dependence refers to the fact that past decisions constrain the number of available options for later decisions, narrow the choice set, and thus lock actors into a potentially inefficient context that cannot be easily escaped (Kay 2005; Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch 2009; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997; Vergne and Durand 2010).
In the same way as complexity theory, the concept of path dependence opposes purely deterministic explanations of change: “When we observe outcome diversity despite similar initial conditions, path dependence is a serious candidate to account for differential evolutionary paths” (Vergne and Durand 2010, p. 744). Thus, not the initial conditions but the path as such (with its building blocks: decisions and somewhat random events) accounts for different developments. Path dependence literature devotes considerable efforts to understanding the drivers of such path-dependent processes. Scholars seem to agree that the most characteristic element of path dependence is the self-reinforcing tendency of the process, leading to lock-in in the absence of exogenous shocks (Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch 2009; Vergne and Durand 2010). However, Page (2006) claims convincingly that behind the proposed drivers of path dependence, negative externalities are often the ultimate cause. In other words, the dependence of future decisions on earlier ones is often due to switching costs (once a decision is taken and perpetuated), which reduce the attractiveness of alternatives (see also Kay 2005; Vergne and Durand 2010).
Despite the fact that not only organizational phenomena but also interorganizational processes are likely to show some path dependence, little research has been conducted into investigating path dependence on a network level (Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch 2009). Notable exceptions are those by Gulati, Nohria, and Zaheer (2000) and Kim, Oh, and Swaminathan (2006). Gulati, Nohria, and Zaheer (2000, p. 210), for instance, describe a lock-in effect of networks based on the recognition that “ties formed with one actor place constraints on ties with others.” These constraints arise because tie formation and maintenance require the employment of scarce resources, and because relationships often preclude, implicitly or explicitly, parallel relationships with others. Drawing on structural inertia theory (Hannan and Freeman 1984), Kim, Oh, and Swaminathan (2006) present the notion of “network inertia” to describe the limited flexibility in changing network relationships. They maintain that network inertia in particular is caused by relationship-specific routines and investments, the existence of parallel and overlapping relationships (“multiplexity”), and the embeddedness of relationships.
Following Levinthal and Fichman (1988), Kim, Oh, and Swaminathan (2006) highlight that the dissolution of network ties is more difficult the longer the previous relationship has been in place. Building on this insight, we suggest that the main positive feedback mechanism behind path dependence in interorganizational constellations and networks is the intertemporal dimension of reciprocity. The increasingly complex web of advanced efforts (e.g., relation-specific investments) and resulting debts as well as the strategic use of these mechanisms (e.g., anticipated reciprocity) create “complementary effects” (Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch 2009) and make the dissolution of existing relations increasingly unfavorable.
Governance of Transformation: Path Creation and Change-Based Momentum
Path dependence is generally pessimistic about the possibilities of change and is strongly structure-oriented. In contrast, a momentum is a tendency driven by some sort of energy or enthusiasm. It differs from path dependence by placing higher emphasis on action, for example, on committing energy in a certain direction. If energy is directed toward persisting with the current strategy or trajectory, including incremental change and modification routines, Jansen (2004) speaks of stasis-based momentum (see also Amburgey and Miner 1992). In contrast, change-based momentum denotes directing energy to embracing new frames and trajectories. If change is desired, it is necessary to overcome the energy in action to retain the old trajectory (Jansen 2004). The greater the gap between the current and the desired trajectory, the more energy is required to introduce change-based momentum. Sources of change-based momentum can be (1) decision makers such as CEOs in organizations, well-connected opinion leaders, or a threshold-number of individuals (critical mass), or (2) the encouragement of repeated action in a new directory. This individual room for maneuver in spite of path-dependent processes is coined “path creation” (Garud, Kumaraswamy, and Karnøe 2010).
What becomes clear from the above discussion is the assumption that actors are not “helpless puppets” of history and previously existing social structures. There is certainly some room for inducing transformations and manipulating history by embedded agency and governance. However, relatively little is known about path creation in concrete terms, for example, how the attraction of the old path can be overcome (Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch 2009), although power and elites seem to play an important role, at least as boundary conditions. Already Marx and Engels emphasized the fact that elites are crucial in amplifying changes by highlighting that “[t]he ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” (1970, p. 64). As for tourism destinations, recent research points to the role of networks of influential individuals and in particular of interlocking directorates for introducing change in governance (Beritelli, Strobl, and Peters 2013). Similarly, Bramwell and Meyer (2007), analyzing the role of power relations and actor involvement in tourism policy on the German island of Rügen, offer a glimpse into the importance of power structures to better understand path-creating processes in interorganizational contexts. Beritelli and Laesser (2011) propose influence reputation as a useful concept to approach power-related issues in research on destination networks. They identify knowledge and power over processes to be major determinants of influence reputation.
Conceding room for embedded and emergent agency facilitates the interpretation of “phase shifts” (see Garud, Kumaraswamy, and Karnøe 2010) or “exogenous shocks” (Vergne and Durand 2010) that lead to a new definition of framework conditions. For instance, Bramwell and Cox (2009) use path dependence and path creation approaches to understand continuities and changes in the evolution of tourism partnerships, in particular, in the context of a steering committee of a British National Park involved in community relationships. With this study, they could highlight the importance of the interplay between external influences and internal reactions to the understanding of path-dependent and path-creating processes. External shocks and pressures are crucial also to the case of Whistler, as presented by Gill and Williams (2011). They demonstrate how governance of the resort community in Whistler, Canada, has evolved over time. In particular, a major switch from pro-growth to a sustainability model occurred because of an official’s external intervention and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. As Gill and Williams observe, “two events acted as exogenous forces that allowed Whistler to move beyond the equilibrium state toward a potential new path” (2011, p. 642).
The present work builds on these studies and provides further evidence of the rigidity of destination networks and of the crucial role of power and influence as well as external shocks to shift to a new path. However, it extends these previous studies by combining the concepts of path dependence and path creation with a social network analysis based on the actors’ influence reputation and different communication styles. This combination allows adding quantitative data to the so far prevalent qualitative evidence, and thus furthers our understanding of destination network dynamics. Moreover, in order to better scrutinize drivers of change-based momentum, it allows differentiating between change agents and opponents of change as well as identifying their respective communication styles.
A Case Study of Australia’s South West
In 2003, a realignment of regional tourism was proposed for Western Australia as a way to encourage more tourists to visit regional Western Australia (WATC 2003b). The strategy was implemented in 2004 and changed the way the Western Australian Tourism Commission (WATC, now Tourism WA) and regional tourism organizations worked together to promote Western Australia as a tourist destination. The previous 11 regions became 5 distinct tourism zones. The main purpose of this new zoning was to realign regional boundaries so as to make regional destinations in Western Australia more marketable and attractive, in particular, to international and interstate visitors. Its proponents anticipated that this approach would better mirror visitors’ potential travel patterns and desired experiences (including visiting some of Western Australia’s iconic landmarks), as well as product availability (WATC 2003c). Moreover, the new concept also aimed to create more efficient and effective administrative arrangements for WA tourism with greater control and responsibilities at the regional level. As a consequence, five new Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs), membership based and under contractual agreement with Tourism WA, were established.
Stretching from south of Mandurah to Albany and east to Bremer Bay, Australia’s South West (ASW), is one of the five newly created tourism zones and with 1.7 million visitors in (2009) the second most visited tourism region in Western Australia (Tourism WA 2010). It offers its visitors a unique blend of natural attractions, including a stunning coastline and beautiful beaches, rich marine life, old-growth forests, as well as a renowned food and wine industry. However, notwithstanding this success, the idea of changing from “regions” to “zones” was at times contested especially by local players and as such met some resistance during the implementation phase. Some of the contentious issues were, for example, related to the structure of the new zones (e.g., the question of regional boundaries), funding (combination of base funding, competitive and performance-related grants), and human resources (e.g., Chairperson, Board membership) (Pforr 2007a).
Although well intended as a way of streamlining regional marketing efforts, zoning meant that with ASW two very different tourism destinations were merged into one. At the time of the merger one of the former regions, the SW region was a rather powerful player having been the second most popular Western Australian tourist destination in 2002 with 19% of its overall market share (after the State capital Perth, with 36%). In contrast, the other former region, the GS region at that time only received about 6% of visitors to Western Australia (WATC 2003a). These differences can be explained not only in terms of the regions’ relative proximity to Perth as the main gateway to southwest Western Australia, but also in terms of the different interests and development stages of the local tourism industries. Thus, it comes as no surprise that in the more remote and less popular former GS tourism region in particular some resentment toward the merger surfaced. On the other hand, concerned parties in the former SW region were, overall, more inclined to accept and support the new regional tourism boundaries (Cooper et al. 2006; Pforr 2007a).
Data collected in the first year of the new structure’s operations confirmed these sentiments. As discussed in more detail below, it transpired that stakeholders of the former SW—the previously more powerful tourism region—appeared more enthusiastic about the new arrangements, with 50% in support and 42% opposing the arrangements; in the former GS region, support for the merger was only 40% with 60% disapproval (Cooper et al. 2006; Pforr 2007a). This indicates that the process of changing from tourism regions to zones was perhaps more complex than anticipated. The findings of the study reassert the rigidity of the former networks. Consequently, the article investigates path-dependent network constellations in the context of an external intervention (i.e., the imposed new zoning). It identifies which stakeholders were most actively involved in the establishment and in the operations of the new ASW tourism zone during its first year of operation, that is, during the transition phase from “old” regions to “new” zones. It also investigates how knowledge and understanding of tourism issues were shared among stakeholders in both formal and informal capacities. Finally, this article assesses the role of the newly established ASW Board from a functional perspective.
Methodology
As briefly mentioned before, the methodology used in this study is grounded in social network analysis (Scott 2000; Wassermann and Faust 1994), which, in broad terms, explores “the exchange of resources among actors such as individuals, groups or organizations” (Scott, Baggio, and Cooper 2008, p. 3).
The quality of relational constellations between the disparate supply elements in a destination is a crucial element of collaboration and communication effectiveness and ultimately influences the way decisions are made. The nature of the relationships between stakeholders is thus an important determinant for the performance of the tourism sector in a region and also influences the way destinations deal with changing conditions. Mutual relevance in destination networks, in other words the extent to which “actors take each other into account in their action” (Schneider and Werle 1991, p. 111), is therefore a focal point in network studies (e.g., Pforr 2006; Schneider and Werle 1991; Knoke and Laumann 1982). It can be assessed by measuring communication and collaboration effectiveness as well as influence reputation within a network.
By focusing on these three main types of interaction, on reputational ties, on cooperation, and on information exchange (i.e., communication), the objective of our case study of the reorganization of regional tourism was to explore the involvement of stakeholders in the planning and implementation process of the new tourism zone in the South West of Western Australia. The aim was to not only identify the core stakeholders in this transition process but to map the pattern of their relationships in the transition phase from “old” to “new.” As highlighted by Beritelli and Laesser (2011), capturing this kind of information assists in uncovering policy and planning processes, in this case the transformation of the organization of regional tourism.
Following a detailed background analysis using secondary data sources (e.g., newspaper articles, government publications and specialist reports), a list of public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders thought to have significant interest in the development of the new ASW tourism zone was compiled. This initial list was refined based on a thorough analysis of documents obtained from the Western Australian Tourism Commission and in discussion with key staff of this organization, which had been in charge of managing the official consultation process underlying the merger of the two tourism regions. To ascertain that the final selection of 50 stakeholders for the study was appropriate, a snowball technique was employed. All participants were given the opportunity to suggest further stakeholders they perceived to be of relevance to the transformation process to ensure that no important actors were overlooked in the initial selection process.
During October 2004, the identified stakeholders were asked to participate in a postal survey. The mail-out questionnaire was designed to explore how stakeholders perceived the merger of the SW and GS regions into the ASW tourism zone in terms of their involvement in both its planning and implementation. The general aim of the questionnaire was to measure “communication and collaboration effectiveness” among these stakeholders. Thirty-four questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 68%.
The stakeholders who opted to participate in the study covered the whole spectrum of tourism and allied industries, that is, visitor information centers, tourism associations, development commissions, tourist bureaus, tour operators, attraction and accommodation providers, as well as local government representatives from councils and shires and also state government entities.
For the purpose of the study, however, the particular attributes of its participants (e.g., organizational affiliation) were of lesser importance to explain policy and planning processes underlying the transition from “old” to “new” structures compared to the analysis of their relational constellations. Thus, this study followed what is referred to as a structural approach with the objective of exploring whether and how the different stakeholders were connected and unveiling the patterns of their relationships (Brandes et al. 1999; Marsh and Smith 2000; Knoke 1990, 1998; Marsh 1998; Marsh and Rhodes 1992; Pforr 2006).
Thus, based on this social network analysis, a connectedness perspective was employed to enable the structural description of actors and their relational constellation as well as an investigation of subnetworks and the identification of blocks of actors. In essence, questions such as “Who were the core stakeholders in the establishment and the operations of the new Australia’s South West tourism zone?” and “What is the nature of their interaction?” were explored.
The survey was developed to elicit how knowledge and understanding was shared between partners in both formal and informal capacities. It was constructed in a way that data relating to factors such as influence reputation (defined as the perceived relative capacity of each actor to influence the operation and actions of the network), collaboration activities (defined as working together in a formal way, e.g., exchange of knowledge via meetings, seminars, workshops, sharing of resources), and participation in information exchange as part of a communication network (defined as exchange of information in terms of both information received as well as information sent among a pair of stakeholders in the network, for example, via telephone conversations, letters, e-mails, flyers, advertising) could be gathered (Pforr 2006; Beritelli and Laesser 2011).
In essence, Question 1 of the survey was set up to identify the stakeholders that were perceived to be the most influential within the regional networks, defined in this context as being “powerful, important and able to give directions.” Question 2 aimed to gain a better understanding of the level of collaboration among network stakeholders, in other words, the sharing of knowledge and understanding within regional networks. Questions 3 and 4 explored communication and the exchange of general information between stakeholders. The focus here was on the activity of sending and receiving general information within the networks that would normally be sent to partners, or received from them, in a more informal capacity.
The network analysis was carried out using UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 1999). The obtained data are communicated in this article in two different ways. Tables are used to highlight the top-ranked stakeholders in each network structure, the so-called network elite. Their interactions are further illustrated in using network diagrams where nodes represent actors and lines the connection between them.
Findings
Perceived Importance of Australia’s South West Stakeholders
The perceived capacity of each of the 50 stakeholders to influence the new zone’s planning and operations can be interpreted in terms of “influence reputation.” Table 1 shows who the most influential players were out of the 50 stakeholders surveyed, that is, the “perceived elite.” The higher a stakeholder is positioned in the table, the stronger its reputation for being able to influence the ways in which the new zone was planned and implemented.
Influence Reputation Elite (Setting-up Phase).
Note: The table contains only those fifteen stakeholders with an influence reputation score (sir) of ≥0.37, whereby all indices were rescaled to a maximum score of sir = 1.00. GS = Great Southern, SW = South West, P = Perth.
Influence reputation scores (sir) identify the actors perceived to be most influential during the “setting-up” phase. Information on their regional affiliation as well as their representation on the Board (yes = Board member, no = non-Board member) can also be found in this table. As can be seen from Table 1, members of the (previously more powerful) former SW region have the reputation of having been most influential during the “setting-up” phase. Another characteristic of this network is that almost three quarters of the elite were Board members of the new ASW tourism zone.
Results of the related question concerning day-to-day operations show some similarities with Table 1 in terms of overall positioning, with Stakeholders 48 and 10, again, being perceived as having the most influence in terms of the day-to-day operations within the new ASW zone. Moreover, in this “day-to-day” elite, Board members strongly outnumber non-Board members by nine to four. All in all, it appears that the perception exists that the former SW exerts a much greater influence also on the day-to-day operations of the new tourism zone.
Formally Working Together in Australia’s South West
The survey also established a picture of the formal collaboration activities of each stakeholder within the ASW network. Collaboration is defined here as working together in a formal way on tourism-relevant issues via an exchange of knowledge through, for example, meetings, seminars, workshops, and through the sharing of resources. Table 2 summarizes this network’s elite and shows the actors most involved in such activities. A comparison between the results of influence reputation (Table 1) and formal collaboration activity (Table 2) shows that there are differences between the perceived influence and the actual collaboration of the various actors.
Formal Collaboration Elite.
Note: All indices were rescaled to a maximum collaboration score (sc) of 1.00. GS = Great Southern, SW= South West, P= Perth.
As can be seen from Table 2, although the two highest-ranked actors are from the former GS tourism region, the overall collaboration elite is clearly dominated by members from the former SW. Interestingly, Actor 48 from Tourism WA, the government organization driving the merger, seems not to have played a significant role in formal collaborative processes although its perceived influence (Table 1) was very high. Moreover, the perceived dominance of Board members in the setting-up phase and in day-to-day operations of the new zone is not fully reflected in this collaboration snapshot, as almost half of this elite’s stakeholders are not members of the ASW Board.
All in all, collaboration activities within the newly formed network were not very intense, expressed in a low density figure lt of only 0.07, which is calculated as the number of ties occurring divided by the number of all theoretically possible ties. So, naturally, network densities can range from 0 to 1, representing the extremes of a totally disconnected and a totally connected network respectively. It is interesting to compare this overall density figure with the respective collaboration densities within the subnetworks of the two formerly separated regions. When calculating the densities of these underlying network structures (lt = 0.08 for SW region and lt = 0.12 for the GS region), two issues become evident: first, the subnetworks of the respective stakeholders from the formerly separated regions are both characterized by a slightly higher density than that of the newly formed ASW zone (lt = 0.07); and second, stakeholders from the former GS region tend to collaborate more actively within their traditional network than stakeholders from the former SW region, which indicates that especially stakeholders from the GS region still prefer to collaborate within their traditional realm.
Actors Bridging the Two Formerly Separated Networks
It is also important to identify those stakeholders who collaborated across former regional boundaries as “bridging actors.” Figure 2 provides a visual representation of these interregional collaborative activities.
Western Australia’s five tourism zones.
Interregional collaborative activities.
With a density lt of 0.02, the activity within this particular network (i.e., across former regions) is markedly lower than in the intraregional networks (i.e., within former regions). This fact further indicates that stakeholders, in particular from the former GS region, still prefer to collaborate within their traditional networks. As can be seen from Figure 2, and also Table 3, the two stakeholders from Perth (actors 48 and 49, black nodes) are very active within this network and fulfill an important bridging function between the two former regions. However, stakeholders 43 (SW) and 31 and 1 (both GS) are also relatively active across previous regional boundaries.
Elite of Collaborative Activities across Former Regional Boundaries.
Note: GS = Great Southern, SW = South West, P = Perth.
It is also interesting to analyze more closely the role of Board members in collaborative activities within the newly formed tourism zone. Board members are abundant among the “bridging actors” (Table 3). This finding concurs with Table 2, which also shows that Board members are relatively active in formal collaboration in the new ASW zone; more than half of the top 13 stakeholders are Board members. Interestingly though, the most active player in formal collaborative activities is not a member of the ASW Board.
Compared to the overall network structure, Figure 3 presents the intra-Board collaborative network as considerably more dense (lt = 0.24), illustrating a much higher degree of collaborative activity among Board members compared to the overall ASW zone (lt = 0.07). Actor 43 appears to be the most active player within this intra-Board network, followed by actors 31 and 49. There also appears to be a greater balance of regional affiliations within this network, with one Board member from the former SW region, another from the former GS region and the third from Perth (the chair on the ASW Board) being central to this network. This suggests, therefore, that the collaboration activities of the Board across the former tourism boundaries during both the planning and implementation phase may have been more intensive and balanced compared to that of other actors.
Intra-Board collaborative activities.
Informal Information Exchange
The study also analyzed the more informal information exchange activities among the various stakeholders, for example, communications via telephone, letters, e-mails, flyers, and through advertising. It is assumed that such communications are less involved and intense than the more formal collaborative activities identified earlier. Compared to the collaboration networks previously described, informal communication networks are much more active, with an overall density lt of 0.27.
What is compelling is first of all that the most active members of this informal network are mainly non-Board members. When analyzing the informal information exchange network in terms of former regional alliances, it was found that the SW region was characterized by considerably fewer information exchange activities (density lt 0.14). In contrast, the former GS region was more active in this regard (lt 0.25). This finding concurs with observations made earlier with respect to collaborative activities among stakeholders within the former GS region. Furthermore, there is a greater balance of Board and non-Board members in this group compared to the SW region.
It is also interesting to analyze information exchange activities among those stakeholders that reach out across the traditional regional boundaries in order to play an important (though little recognized) role as bridging actors. Figure 4 depicts these interregional information exchanges, with white nodes identifying stakeholders from the former GS region and gray nodes identifying stakeholders from the former SW region.
Interregional information exchange.
Table 4 shows that actors 32 and 1 are the most active in terms of interregional informal information exchange and are as such the most important bridging actors. Remarkably, both actors are members of the former GS region and are non-Board members. Although results indicate that the established ASW zone and, in particular, its formal collaboration activities appear to be driven by stakeholders from the former SW region, stakeholders from the former GS region that are not members of the Board appear far more active in less formal information exchange.
Interregional Informal Information Exchange Elite.
Note: GS = Great Southern, SW = South West, P = Perth.
Discussion
Data collected for this study suggest that communication and collaboration among stakeholders during the planning and early stages of implementation of the newly established ASW tourism zone in 2004/2005 was a complex process, perhaps much more so than first anticipated. The externally imposed “shock” of a new zoning was in itself not sufficient to fully overcome the path-dependent development of the destination networks of the former tourism regions. The aggregate network of the newly established ASW tourism zone is still less dense than each of its two subnetworks that are based on the former tourism regions SW and GS. Furthermore, the restricted interregional collaboration network was found to have a particularly low density. This means that despite their merger into the new ASW tourism zone, the traditional networks of the SW and GS tourism regions at least partly persist.
However, the exogenous intervention leading to a restructuring of the regional organization of tourism in southwest Western Australia triggered a complex set of path-creating forces and momenta, which are moreover partly working in opposite directions (stasis-based and change-based). The complexity of this path-creating process toward establishing a substantially modified destination network can be understood along the three dimensions of former territorial belonging, board membership as well as communication and collaboration mechanisms. Thereby, it is possible to differentiate the groups of stakeholders that oppose changes in network structure from those who act as change agents as well as to identify their respective communication mechanisms.
Formal Collaboration
Persistence of the former power relations between the regions—The winning elite
The case study suggests that formal collaboration and communication between the major players involved in the planning (setting-up) and implementation (day-to-day operations) of the new regional tourism zone ASW was favored most and was led by members of the former SW tourism region. In contrast, members of the former GS region still preferred to collaborate and communicate, perhaps less formally, within the traditional and familiar regional boundaries.
It is revealing that especially stakeholders of the former GS region continued to adhere to their traditional network: Being the weaker subregion in the merged zone, GS stakeholders incur a bigger risk of losing influence than members of the stronger SW subnetwork. Thus, it seems that this specific power constellation due to differences in tourist attractiveness between the two former regions and the fact that the former SW subnetwork dominates formal postmerger collaboration are strictly linked. Consequently, the transition phase may have been less smooth than anticipated, with one group (GS) preferring the status quo and the other (SW) a merger.
Bridging role of Board members
However, further analysis of formal communication and collaboration between stakeholders also suggests that the ASW Board members from both former regions worked together well in this regard. The intra-Board network shows relatively high density and a well-balanced participation of both former tourism regions (reflected in Board membership). The Board thus played a significant bridging role in formal communication and collaborative activities. As such, the ASW Board seems to have great potential to bring the stakeholders of both former regions together in order to negotiate a more effective merger. In other words, collaboration across former regional borders, across the regional subnetworks, rests heavily on ASW Board members. These findings indicate that the very ruling elite, that is, in this case Board members, are an important source of change-based momentum, promote path creation, and are thus major change agents.
Informal Information Exchange
Less importance of Board members
However, when comparing communication and collaboration in the more informal networks it became evident that Board members were less involved in these activities. Informal communications may possibly concern very specific day-to-day, routine, or “on-ground” operations rather than matters affecting the planning and implementation of the entire ASW zone that are probably of most concern to Board members.
Persistence of the former power relations between the regions—Resistance to change by the losing elite
Networks of informal information exchange were found to be dense and active. Generally, stakeholders from the former GS region that were mainly non-Board members dominated this informal information exchange.
Although it appears that even in the informal information exchange networks, old alliances along former regional boundaries were still very relevant, it is possible to observe some actors reaching out across those traditional lines of operation. Interestingly enough, stakeholders of the GS region drive to a significant extent the informal interregional network that is spanning across the former tourism regions. Therefore, the major divide between the “winning elite” (that with better starting conditions, i.e., the South West network) and the “losing elite” (GS) does not concern the attitude toward building interregional relations as such but rather refers to the content (formal and informal) of these relations. The informal communication network, thus, appears to be a stronghold of the potential “losers” of the formal transformation process and might also be a source of resistance to it, if not managed and involved appropriately. But at the same time, if managed well, the informal communication network may provide an opportunity to amplify and broaden the change-based momentum toward creating a new path of integrated, interregional tourism planning and implementation, which involves a large and more balanced number of stakeholders from both formerly separate tourism regions.
Conclusion
Without doubt, adaptation will be a critical competence in shaping the future of tourism in the Asia-Pacific region. With our article, we are able to show that in the context of an “external shock,” the dynamic quality of the relationships among destination stakeholders becomes a crucial prerequisite in determining how successfully a destination deals with changing conditions. External drivers such as climate change, economic growth, increased global competition, or demographic shifts constantly force the tourism sector to deal with and adapt to new circumstances. This is particularly true for the rapidly evolving Asia-Pacific tourism sector. Australia for instance is among those countries that are most vulnerable to climate change, with Western Australia, the geographical focus of our study, being one of the continent’s most threatened regions. Building, enlarging, and adapting destination networks might become an indispensable dynamic capability in dealing with such future challenges of tourism in the Asia-Pacific (and beyond).
By analyzing transformations in the regional organization of tourism in Western Australia, where the former GS and SW tourism regions were merged into the new ASW zone, the study investigated how destination networks change (or do not change) vis-à-vis the occurrence of an external intervention. Starting from the recognition that many processes and forces that are relevant to the competitiveness of tourism destinations “are either impossible or very difficult to manage” (Crouch 2011, p. 40), the study adds to existing theory by furthering the understanding of how and to what extent transformations of destination networks are governable, thereby contributing to several streams in the literature.
It advances research on destination governance, destination competitiveness, destination stakeholder involvement, and destination planning by paying particular attention to often neglected dynamic aspects, including the phenomena of path dependency and path creation. In this sense, the study complements the investigation of tourist-related dynamic effects onto destination competitiveness (Croes 2011) with a supply-oriented and network-based perspective. Additionally, it furthers the predominantly static models of destination governance (Song, Liu, and Chen 2013).
Within the expanding context of tourism in the Asia-Pacific region, extended networks and strategic alliances at the destination level might be a destination governance model suited to proactively shape the future of tourism in order to capture opportunities and mitigate risks. This governance model might provide destination leadership (Pechlaner, Kozak, and Volgger 2014) by striking a balance between the necessity to realize scale efficiencies, to being flexible and to guaranteeing mutual benefits among diverse tourism stakeholders.
The study also adds to theory on destination development by explicitly taking into consideration the situational complexity of tourism destinations (see Weaver 2012) and by empirically sustaining conceptual assertions of destination complexity (Saraniemi and Kylänen 2011). In contrast to previous accounts, the study clearly highlights the rigidity of tourism destination networks and their resistance to change, while at the same time indicating possible approaches to implementing stepwise transformations of such self-stabilizing systems. In detail, the study provides evidence of the path-dependent characteristics of networks, and in particular of tourist destination networks and, thus, adds additional depth to the findings of Bramwell and Cox (2009) and Gill and Williams (2011). Path dependence implies major difficulties in implementing structural change from within the system. However, the study results indicate that historically grown destination networks even show remarkable persistence when exposed to exogenous forces such as a merger: Despite the externally imposed alignment into the ASW zone, the traditionally separated destination networks of the GS and SW regions largely continued to persist and made network transformation more difficult than expected. This case study may thus help to raise the awareness of regional tourism organizations and other relevant stakeholders involved in tourism governance and regional development of some of the more complex, underlying problems and obstacles that can develop during periods of major change.
Yet, the research was also able to detect some sources of change-based momentum in destination networks and therefore provides tangible evidence how an existing path might be overcome. Indeed, a major original contribution of the present work lies in the detailed analysis of the origins and processes of interorganizational path creation in networks, in general, and tourist destinations, in particular. It extends theory on path creation (Garud, Kumaraswamy, and Karnøe 2010; Jansen 2004) by differentiating between change agents and opponents of change, based on their respective roles, power, and communication styles. This useful contribution is made possible by the combination of a path analytical, dynamic perspective with the tools of social network analysis. Most importantly, this combination allows to figure out that differentiating between formal collaboration and informal information exchange is crucial to better capture the dynamics of path-changing processes.
Remarkably, within the first realm of formal collaboration, it is the ruling elite in the form of Board members who seems to be a major ally in the network transformation attempt. A plausible cause for this change-promoting attitude of Board members may lie first of all in the fact that their powerful position is directly tied to the formal change in interorganizational structure. Additionally, the formality involved in Board membership (and its appointment) provides an opportunity to involve members of different subnetworks and thus to win them for the common cause. In the case of the ASW zone, Board appointment was—consciously or not—balanced from the perspective of former territorial belonging. Thus, the Board operated as a vehicle to create favorable conditions for a set of individuals from both sides of the former borders and thus to win change agents and bridging actors. This is a particularly relevant insight from a governance perspective. The existence of formal positions and processes offers levers to generate change-based momentum and to implement transformations in networks if attention is paid to a balanced appointment (e.g., involvement of all stakeholder groups).
A different picture emerges, however, from informal information exchange. It seems to be a stronghold of the “losing elite,” that is, of the subnetwork that risks losing influence because of the external intervention (e.g., the merger), whereas both Board members and members of the more powerful (“winning”) regional subnetwork play a minor role in this informal information exchange. Because of their relative immunity to external control and their characteristics of self-governance, informal communications appear to be the “weapon” of actual or potential losers of a network transformation process. Therefore, informal communications might tend to generate stasis-based momentum opposing change in networks. This finding is in line with the observation of Sydow, Schreyögg, and Koch (2009), who assert that informal processes are a major obstacle to overcoming organizational path dependence.
However, the study also provides indication that informal information exchange networks are not per se confined to historically grown subnetworks. Informal information exchange, at least in part, crosses “old” network boundaries and may thus have big potential to amplifying change-based momentum in networks.
Last but not least, this research makes a number of contributions to understanding the future of tourism in the Asia Pacific region and beyond by linking a futures studies perspective with questions of network governance and interorganizational transformations. Its findings are in line with the claim that a crucial challenge in linking futures studies with organizational development and strategic management is of political nature and lies in the generation of support for change (van der Steen et al. 2011). Creating urgency for change in tourism destination networks might contrast with political interests and power relations and thus is likely to create opposition. In other words, the present study complements futures research by empirically illustrating that while networks may span boundaries (Feldman 2012), they do not eliminate power differences. Rather, networks may have quite rigid boundaries with low permeability that cannot be easily transformed. However, the study also offers clues to deal with the future challenge of transforming destination networks by distinguishing between change agents and opponents of change and their respective roles and communication styles. In this context, we share the view that communication influences network governance (Tonn and Stiefel 2012; Waite 2012) and provide evidence that supports this assertion in the field of tourism. Hence, by applying a dynamic social network analysis (Rodríguez Díaz 2009), the study contributes to strengthening the capability of tourism planners to implement desired situations in destinations, which are confronted with an increasingly globalized and competitive tourism market.
Thus, as far as managerial implications are concerned, the governance of network transformation aimed at improving destination competitiveness (Botti, Goncalves, and Ratsimbanierana 2012; Croes 2011; Crouch 2011; Ritchie and Crouch 2003) and thus paving the way to a successful future of tourism destinations will need to pay particular attention to informal information exchange activities. In the context of the case study presented here, acknowledging the “subversive power” of informal communication might mean involving a larger and more balanced number of stakeholders from both formerly separate tourism regions into intense discussions and consensus-oriented decision-making processes. Following Bieger (1996), it might also mean building a common value basis as well as a shared vision, which influence both formal and informal communications and which may subsequently lead to a real transformation of two separate networks into one single integrated network. Therefore, future research needs to better assess the role of common values and shared meanings (“cultural aspects”) in the governance of network transformations (“social structure”).
Transformation and dynamic adaptation of networks are probably among the most important capabilities for proactively managing the future of tourism in the Asia-Pacific, a future that may be full of sudden or continuous—but in any case—significant change processes. Transformational destination governance therefore takes an important role in managing destination adaptation and resilience. As governance arrangements of tourism destinations provide insights into the effectiveness of cooperation and interaction processes, it is crucial to examine the nature of the involvement of different destination stakeholders as well as the coordination and control of network structures (i.e., collaborative relationships, formation of clusters and networks, leadership)—and how they change. As outlined in our article, this will contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of networking and collaboration in tourism destinations in order to improve their adaptive capacity and to ensure their future competitiveness.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The empirical work reported in this publication was supported by funding from the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centres Programme through the Sustainable Tourism CRC (ST-CRC).