Social capital at the tourist destination level: Determining the dimensions to assess and improve collective action in tourism

Abstract

A tourist destination, as a collective of actors trying to act together, faces the challenges of shaping a common future and self-determining its development path. This depends on its actors’ capacity to act towards collective goals. Social capital (SC) theory explains how resources are mobilised for common purposes, representing a key notion for understanding collective action. Non-tourism- and tourism-related literature on SC were analysed, finding that SC theory is used mostly as a means to study other aspects in tourism. Little has been discussed about SC itself as the object of interest. This article, therefore (1) identifies the key dimensions and levels of scope of a tourist destination’s SC, and (2) presents a structured assessment framework as the basis to reflect upon the improvement of the destination’s capacity for self-determination. The article contributes to tourist destination’s SC theory building and as the basis for further research on the subject.

Keywords

assessment collective action dimensions self-determination social capital tourist destination

Introduction

In general terms, an important aim for tourist destinations is to attract visitors and maximise benefits for local actors. However, two crucial questions arise: What are the expected benefits? And, what are the potential negative effects of tourism? From a sustainability perspective, ‘to maximise benefits’ implies more than only economic revenue (Harrison, 2014; Macbeth et al., 2004). It also implies improvement of the social and ecological spheres, while, avoiding the potentially widely documented negative impacts associated with some tourism forms, such as conventional mass tourism (Lansing and Vries, 2006; Weaver, 2014). Beyond generalisations, however, when seeing a specific destination as a collective of actors trying to improve their life conditions through tourism, a more fundamental challenge is whether that collective has the capacity to act together to shape a common future and self-determine its own development path. Thus, from a self-determination perspective, it is the collective that should be able to set the expected benefits, identify the potential negative effects to avoid and act accordingly.

Collective self-determination, however, is complex to achieve. This is especially the case in tourism, where there are many players with different interests involved in the dynamics of a destination (Hartman, 2016). It is well known, for instance, that development efforts depending on external entities, such as aid agencies, or central governmental institutions (Sharpley, 2009), might not result in the desired outcomes (Neilson, 2014). Although support is useful, the key factor for self-determination is that the concerned actors identify necessities and goals, and achieve coordination under their own terms and values in an iterative learning process (Beritelli, 2011; Brohman, 1996; Macbeth et al., 2004; Okazaki, 2008; Sharpley, 2009; Zhao et al., 2011).

Within that context, this article deals with social capital (SC) theory, which refers to the capacity of people to act together towards common goals (Bourdieu, 1986; Burt, 1993; Häuberer, 2011; Lin, 2001; Okazaki, 2008; Putnam, 1995), and addresses a tourist destination as a group of actors trying to act collectively. However, in tourism, SC remains highly fragmented and vaguely operationalised (Park et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2011). Although there are several SC’s measurement and assessment techniques for other fields (Grootaert et al., 2004; Grootaert and van Bastelar, 2002; Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009), they are not fully transferable for the case of tourism. There is no tourism-specific integrated conceptual structure that guides the analysis of SC’s dimensions within a tourist destination structure and its different levels of aggregated actors. Having such a framework is valuable not only for a more structured study of SC in tourism. It is particularly valuable in facilitating a process of reflection on the capacity of a destination, as a collective of actors, to self-determine a common future through tourism.

This article, thus (1) identifies the key dimensions and the levels of scope to assess SC as the object of interest in a destination and (2) presents a framework for the systematic and structured study of a destination’s SC as the basis to reflect upon the improvement of its collective action capacities. This work, therefore, is relevant to qualitatively assess and reflect on SC for a broad range of tourist destinations.

First, the notion of tourist destinations as collectives of actors that require resources to act is discussed in relation to SC as a key mobilising resource. Afterwards, we explain how theory was analysed as the basis for assessing a destination’s SC. Later, two focusing factors are identified: destination’s SC key dimensions and levels of scope. Then, a structured assessment matrix is presented, along with some approaches for its analytical application. Finally, some conclusions are drawn, pointing out implications of the matrix for future research.

SC as the key resource for collective actions at tourist destinations

Tourist destinations as dynamic collectives

Tourist destinations are dynamic entities formed by heterogeneous groups of actors. The commercial sector, for instance, is mostly composed of a wide variety of SMEs (small and medium enterprises) (Pearce, 2008; Song et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2011; Vanneste and Ryckaert, 2011, 2012). These firms, in turn, interact with several other groups of actors such as governments, residents, communities or associations (Viken, 2014) in the process of facilitating the tourism experience (Haugland et al., 2011; Pearce, 2008). From a governance perspective, destinations are multi-layered structures that facilitate or complicate those experiences. Territorially speaking, destinations may range from a specific attraction to the combination of places in multiple countries. While local actors might define and promote ‘their destination’ based on political boundaries (e.g. a region or even a country), ‘the destination’ that visitors experience might cross political boundaries along a route (e.g. travelling through South America from Quito to La Paz via Lima) (Pike and Page, 2014; Saraniemi and Kylänen, 2011). This suggests that the notion of ‘destination’ needs to be dynamic, with a territory in constant reconfiguration, defined by the location and mobility of the actors involved in the case of interest.

Those multi-sectoral interactions, combined with the tourist involvement within geographical settings of tourist resources, may create the perception of the ‘tourist destination’ as a collective entity acting in a unified way. However, dynamics within destinations are usually far from being easily unified (Beritelli, 2011; Viken, 2014). First of all, destinations often contain host societies where not all of the members play a role in tourism or are in favour of it (Dudwick et al., 2006; Macbeth et al., 2004; Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009; Taylor, 2016). Second, joint participation might not be the rule as tourism actors might see each other as competitors (Von Friedrichs Grängsjö and Gummesson, 2006). Third, even when people may subjectively perceive the destination as a unit (Beritelli et al., 2014), the final experience is in fact facilitated by a sum of diverse actors (Haugland et al., 2011). Furthermore, some of those actors may focus mainly on the economic return, or on marketing and promotional activities and tourists’ quantity, neglecting the broader implications for the destination. Finally, what the visitor may physically perceive as one destination could, in fact, be a combination of different territorial administrative entities (Saarinen, 2014). These complicate coordination efforts.

Thus, the relationships between governments, firms and host societies at different levels influence how stakeholders participate, and ultimately, benefit, either economically or socially. In this complex scenario, if self-determination and positive benefits are expected for host societies, at least some of the actors must find consensus on their goals, going beyond personal interests and acting collectively towards common goals (Beritelli, 2011; McGehee et al., 2010; Williams and Elkhashab, 2012).

Resources for collective actions

Throughout this article, the term ‘capital’ will be used in its broadest meaning, referring to all forms of resources useful to reach a certain goal (Macbeth et al., 2004; McGehee et al., 2010). If we consider a destination as groups of actors trying to act collectively towards a common goal (Bramwell and Lane, 2011; Halkier et al., 2014; Viken, 2014), then a key aspect is the availability of the required capitals to perform collective acts. The most commonly recognised forms of capital owned by individuals are economic or financial capital represented in monetary, property rights or also as built capital; and cultural or human capital, represented in skills and education (Bourdieu, 1986; Burt, 1993). In the specific field of tourism, Destination Capitals theory (Sharpley, 2009) adds other forms of capital such as natural or built environments, the access to and skills in the use of technologies, and the political capacity to deal with external actors.

In the context of a tourist destination, all the diverse capitals are required to support collective actions. A fundamental issue, therefore, is the destination capacity to facilitate the flow of those resources towards a collective aim (Beritelli, 2011; McGehee et al., 2010; Okazaki, 2008; Williams and Elkhashab, 2012). Agreements are required for that purpose, but that is just the beginning; subsequent cooperation must be effective enough to operationalise those agreements as well (Beritelli, 2011).

This operationalisation represents a challenging task because different forms of capital are in control of individual stakeholders. Firms and residents may possess human and technological capital (e.g. logistic experience and capacities put in place), local governments may facilitate access to natural or built capital (e.g. access to public heritage sites), local communities may possess cultural capital (e.g. craftsmanship), and national governments may influence the use of economic capital (e.g. public budget for projects). Hence, diverse capitals are in control of different actors, who might have diverse or even conflicting priorities, which creates barriers that prevent agreements from becoming actual collective actions. Brokers may play a mediating role and try to foster the collective via a neutral bargaining position, but their success, again, is dependent on the trust and authority they receive from the participants (Vanneste and Ryckaert, 2011).

SC as the mobilising resource

SC, conversely to the aforementioned forms of capital, is not an individual property or a fully pre-existing resource, and its potential does not reside in the hands of one individual actor (Burt, 1993; Coleman, 1990). That is, SC is a semi-realised resource embedded in existing social relations and connections, and SC is fully realised only through actual interactions between several actors with a common aim (Bourdieu, 1986). SC is, therefore, a resource shared between the intervenient parts, which allows them to mobilise their independently owned capitals for a common purpose. SC is ‘the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit’ (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998: 243), and ‘[s]ocial capital emerges in the structure of relations or networks among individuals or collectives’ (Häuberer, 2011: 148).

To better understand SC’s nature, let us think of the simplest level of SC, that of an individual person. The person’s social interactions in the past create ties with others, who can contribute with common actions in the future (Gaag and Webber, 2008). For instance, friends or relatives providing support in a moment of need, such as helping to move or giving a recommendation for a job. A more complex level of SC is that of a collective. For instance, an association of entrepreneurs trying to obtain the local government’s support for new infrastructure. In a group of actors, SC mobilises other kinds of capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Häuberer, 2011) to achieve common interests. Furthermore, in tourist Destination Capitals theory (Sharpley, 2009), SC is considered as a special functional resource (Coleman, 1990), which drives other resources, such as financial and human capital, into purposive actions (Burt, 1993).

Thus, in the context of a tourist destination, we refer to SC at the collective level, where the ability to fuel interactions between several players to support collective actions towards common goals is decisive for the development and/or survival of a destination. In that sense, it is fundamental to foster a destination’s SC if it is expected that host societies can look after themselves, playing a pivotal role in planning and development strategies (Park et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2011).

Every coin has two faces: unfavourable manifestations of SC

As SC emerges from interactions between actors at different levels and locations, its properties can be compared to those of non-linearity and not centrality as in complex systems (Hartman, 2016; Mai and Smith, 2015). In addition, due to the complex dynamics within a destination, SC’s outcomes have a considerable degree of unpredictability. Thus, SC cannot be considered a synonym of positive results or a problem-solving theory. SC is a neutral, heuristic construct that helps to understand collectives’ interactions, independently of their positive or negative, desired on undesired outcomes. Therefore, if a destination wants to enhance its capacity for self-determination, it also needs to be aware of the negative aspects of SC (Portes, 2000). For example, when actors with influence, just out of fear of losing their power position, collectively oppose to changes in laws, methodologies or newcomers to participate, limiting heterogeneity in the group, which is a key element for innovation (Schmidt et al., 2016; Williams and Shaw, 2011). An even more negative form of SC also manifests when some actors take unfair advantage of their position and social connections in detriment of fellow participants (Levien, 2015). Another scenario is when actors indeed work together, demonstrating positive SC, but towards unrealistic goals, leading to frustration, or towards damaging goals and undesired impacts.

Thus, in this article, SC is not approached with a positive predetermined connotation. SC is approached as a heuristic tool to study a destination as a group of actors trying to act together, with its positive and negative aspects. And although SC’s outcomes in a destination is not fully controllable, the purpose of this article is helping to understand its dynamics, and to reflect on how to enhance positive collective action and self-determination.

SC in tourism studies and the importance of assessing it

The importance of assessing SC

If we consider a destination as a group of actors trying to act collectively and aiming for self-determination, then it seems fundamental to understand what hinders or enhances their capacity to actually act collectively (Macbeth et al., 2004). SC theory offers grounds to study the gap between statements of intention and effective efforts. Understanding this gap can greatly contribute to the improvement of a destination’s ability to maximise benefits in more sustainable ways (Jamieson, 2014; McGehee et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, SC is a ‘slippery concept’ (McGehee et al., 2010: 497), in the sense that its assessment is difficult to carry out since its characteristics are context dependent (Dudwick et al., 2006; Grootaert et al., 2004; Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009). Moreover, different authors in both tourism- and non-tourism-related fields propose diverse dimensions and approaches to assess or use SC to understand collective actions.

We argue, therefore, that a destination can greatly benefit from a more structured form to qualitatively assess SC for its particular case (Taylor, 2016), which is especially relevant because other forms of measuring and quantifying SC may overlook ‘the complex and often times contradictory nature of human actions and interactions’ (Ooi et al., 2015b: 433). Such a structured approach would help the destination’s actors to better understand their position, the relation with other destinations and with influential institutions in power (Park et al., 2012), and to reflect on how to enhance their SC for effective collective actions (Gil and Martínez, 2012).

Finally, and perhaps of main importance in facilitating the assessment of SC’s dynamics in tourist destinations is that a collective (firms + governments + host communities) capable of reflecting on its own capacities for action empowers its self-determination (Macbeth et al., 2004). This represents the ultimate attribute that a group of actors trying to act together towards their development can achieve (Sharpley, 2009). Self-determination implies the ability to collectively reflect, agree and act in accordance with what is deemed relevant for the destination’s actors, differentiating between final purposes (improved life conditions) and the mere means (tourism initiatives) (Taylor, 2016). Such an enhanced ability for collective reflection supports the fundamental challenge: act together to shape a common future and self-determine the development path.

SC: a concept vaguely operationalised in tourist destinations

There is a fragmented body of literature concerning SC (Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009; Sander and Lowney, 2006), and especially when applied to understanding tourism phenomena (Park et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2011). This is mainly because SC has been mostly used as an adaptable and fragmented conceptual framework and a means to tackle other specific subjects such as rural tourism (Park et al., 2012), entrepreneurship (Zhao et al., 2011), sports events (Jamieson, 2014; Williams and Elkhashab, 2012) and community-based tourism (Park et al., 2012). SC in tourism has not been approached as the object of study itself, producing limited progress on understanding how SC works in the complex scenarios of tourist destinations, and this, in turn, limits our understanding on how to improve the destination’s capacity to self-determine its development path. Key features or dimensions to assess SC in tourism are not clear.

This fragmentation is especially limiting because SC is not a tangible resource, requiring therefore, other kinds of dimensions to study it (Coleman, 1990; Sander and Lowney, 2006). In many cases, those conceptual dimensions have been borrowed from related research fields dealing with SC and poverty alleviation or economic development at the level of individuals and households (Grootaert et al., 2004), organisations (Grootaert and van Bastelar, 2002), communities (Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009) or regions, proposing, for instance, ‘six sometimes overlapping dimensions of social capital: (i) groups and networks, (ii) trust and solidarity, (iii) collective action and cooperation, (iv) information and communication, (v) social cohesion and inclusion, and (vi) empowerment and political action’ (Dudwick et al., 2006: 1).

Little attention has been devoted, however, to identify SC’s dimensions for the case of tourist destinations, in a way that serve as conceptual guidelines to analyse a broader range of tourism contexts. Tourism theory would greatly benefit from frameworks to study destinations’ SC, analyse how to enhance it and make comparisons between different cases.

Towards a comprehensive set of key dimensions for SC in tourism

This article’s approach does not attempt to adjust SC theory to fit the needs of a specific case study. On the contrary, based on existing theory, previous specifically oriented applications of SC theory on tourism and non-tourism case studies, and detailed SC assessment methodologies for non-tourism fields, this article identifies key characteristics to assess SC at the level of a tourist destination. In other words, drawing from specifically oriented publications, we extract general SC’s dimensions applicable for assessment of a broader range of tourism cases.

A detailed text analysis of diverse literature was conducted as follows:

The criteria for considering a publication as a useful source was whether it discussed specific key characteristics of SC, and not only the theory in general terms;

Following that criteria, 39 publications (journal articles, books, research reports, and methodological manuals) were preselected from the vast SC literature;

In a second round, the preselected publications were reviewed in more detail to filter the ones that pointed key SC’s characteristics in a more explicit way, for instance: ‘The structural dimension concerns the overall pattern of connections within a network of social relationships’ (Zhao et al., 2011: 1572); or ‘competitors have to adhere to certain basic principles, strike a balance between seemingly contradictory strategies, and live by an agreed code of conduct’ (Von Friedrichs Grängsjö and Gummesson, 2006: 58);

By analysing similarities in the notions of those key characteristics, we could group the filtered publications’ content under keywords’ columns, representing SC’s key dimensions;

Through this process, extended and detailed tables were created. Simplified versions of the full tables are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.

Results identify two types of literature. First, non-tourism-related literature on SC (Table 1), with eight publications deemed useful for this article. Five discuss SC in conceptual terms and three present methodologies for SC’s assessment in other fields. They cover a wide time-span, starting with early theorisations of SC, by Bourdieu (1986), until an extended compilation and discussion on SC’s theoretical developments and updated theorisation by Häuberer (2011). Second, tourism-related literature on SC (Table 2), also with eight publications deemed as useful for this article. They cover a more recent time-span, from 2006 to 2015.

Table 1.

Non-tourism-related literature on social capital.

Authors by year	Essential characteristics and keywords
Authors by year	Keywords related to the structure	Keywords related to the cognitive	Keywords related to the outputs
Bourdieu, 1986	Members in a group	Building and maintaining trust	Material and symbolic exchange
Coleman, 1990	Intentional organisations –Information potential – Authority relations	Obligations and expectations – Norms and effective sanctions	–
Putnam, 1995	Networks	Norms – Trust	Act together to pursue shared objectives
Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998	Network of social relationships – Quality or strength of social ties	Shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meanings	–
Grootaert et al., 2004	Membership in local associations and networks	Trust and solidarity	Collective action
Dudwick et al., 2006	Groups and networks – Information and communication	Trust and solidarity	Collective action and cooperation – Social cohesion and inclusion – Empowerment and Political Action
Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009	Groups and networks – Information and communication	Trust and solidarity	Collective action and cooperation – Social cohesion and inclusion – Empowerment and Political Action
Häuberer, 2011	Structural asset of networks	Generalised trust and norms of reciprocity	Useful for actions

Authors’ own elaboration, based on the authors cited in the table.

Table 2.

Tourism-related literature on social capital.

Authors by year(and research subject)	Essential characteristics and keywords
Authors by year(and research subject)	Keywords related to the structure	Keywords related to the cognitive	Keywords related to the outputs
Von Friedrichs Grängsjö and Gummesson, 2006 (collective hotel marketing)	Networking – Meet face to face – Share information	Basic principles – Code of conduct – Active dialogue – Be efficient – Be equals – Trust each other – Have fun	Drive for action is decisive
Barbini, 2008 (social capital indicators)	Networks – Functioning, heterogeneity and extension of networks	Shared norms, values and beliefs – Types and degree of trust	Mobilise resources by a group – Types and degree of collective actions
Zhao et al., 2011 (entrepreneurship)	Network of social relationships – Quality or strength of social ties	Shared representations, interpretations and systems of meanings	–
McGehee et al., 2010 (relation between forms of capital)	Social networks – Social structures – Organisations	Norms – Trust –Reciprocity	Cooperation
Park et al., 2012 (communities conflict management)	Networks	Social trust – Reciprocity – Norms	Coordination – Cooperation for mutual benefits
Williams and Elkhashab, 2012 (DMOs consortium for Olympic games)	Stakeholders – Social relations and networks – Flows of information	Shared trust, mutual understanding and respect – Shared norms, values and reciprocity	Collectively working – Collective action
Jamieson, 2014 (rural sport tourism)	Social networks	Social trust – Social norms	Solve common problems or assist each other – Cooperate for mutual benefit
Ooi et al., 2015b (sustainability in mountain resorts)	Networks – Resources	Social norms – Trust and reciprocity	Resources collectively pooled for a common aim

DMO: Destination Management Organisation.

Authors’ elaboration, based on the authors cited in the table.

SC dimensions from non-tourism literature

From this group of publications, those discussing SC from a conceptual approach point to two main recurring notions to identify SC’s key dimensions. The first notion relates to terms such as groups, networks, membership, structure, relations, organisations, information and communications; we term this dimension as Networks. The second notion relates to terms such as norms, sanctions, trust, solidarity, values and reciprocity; we term this dimension as Norms & Trust. These dimensions refer mostly to preliminary conditions for SC to emerge in the first place: ‘[b]y “social capital”, I mean features of social life–networks, norms, and trust–that enable participants to act together’ (Putnam, 1995: 664). This more conceptual group of literature, however, does not refer too much about a dimension for the outcomes of that ‘acting together’. It is the literature that presents methodologies for the assessment of SC (Dudwick et al., 2006; Grootaert et al., 2004; Nyhan Jones and Woolcock, 2009), the one that, besides supporting the notions of Networks and Norms & Trust, clearly points to outcomes. This methodological literature introduces terms such as collective action, cooperation, cohesion, inclusion, empowerment and political action: ‘[t]he provision of many services requires collective action by a group of individuals. The extent to which this collective action occurs can be measured and is an indicator of underlying social capital’ (Grootaert et al., 2004: 14). This refers to the aspect of SC’s outputs, and we term this dimension as Collective Action, which stems from, and feedbacks into, the two previously identified dimensions.

SC dimensions from tourism literature

The first clearly identifiable notion is related to terms such as relations, structure and organisations: ‘social capital is understood as the features of social organisation, such as networks’ (Park et al., 2012: 1512); we have termed this dimension also as Networks. The second clearly identifiable notion is related to terms such as values, beliefs and reciprocity: ‘social capital refers to the degree of shared trust, mutual understanding and respect generated or lost among stakeholders’ (Williams and Elkhashab, 2012: 318); we have termed this dimension also as Norms & Trust. As for the third dimension previously identified in the case of non-tourism literature, Collective Actions, tourism literature refers to it in vague ways, such as: ‘[t]hrough collectively mobilising shared resources and obligations’ (Ooi et al., 2015a: 429). This is because, in contrast to non-tourism literature that discusses theory, dimensions and methodologies to assess SC itself, tourism literature mostly uses pre-existing SC theory as a means to study other specific aspects in tourism (see left column of Table 2). Thus, tourism literature is more interested in describing the outcomes of the specific aspect of interest using a SC approach, rather than theorising on SC’s outcomes within the context of a destination, or rather than discussing SC’s value in understanding the capacity of a collective to shape a common future through tourism. Exceptions are the works by Barbini (2008) and McGehee et al. (2010), who do reflect on SC as the object of interest in tourism. Nevertheless, an upside from this more empirical approach from tourism literature is that there are more similarities when authors identify SC key characteristics. This is because tourism researchers became interested only after years of SC’s theoretical development, finding therefore, a more refined conceptual basis to use SC as a means to study other issues on tourism. These empirical applications are valuable in the sense that they demonstrate the utility of SC’s theory in tourism studies. Their approach, however, and precisely because of the broadness of SC’s literature, is conceptually fragmented and dispersed, which also confirms the need for a more structured and integrated framework to assess SC in tourism.

Discussion

Based on the previous results, we elaborate on two focusing factors to ease the assessment of SC at the destination level: first factor, to focus on the identified SC’s key dimensions seen as a dynamic process; and second factor, to focus on SC’s levels of scope in the destination’s structure.

First focusing factor: SC’s key dimensions of an emerging process

Both non-tourism- as well as tourism-related literature highlight SC as a non-pre-existing resource that is not independently owned and one that emerges from a process of interactions. Nevertheless, to observe that process is not an easy task and the vast array of approaches from SC’s literature makes it even more complex. Therefore, based on the results from the previous section, we propose to use the three identified key dimensions Networks, Norms & Trust and Collective Actions, as the building blocks for a framework to look at SC as a dynamic process (Figure 1). This is not a simple transference of SC’s characteristics into tourism. First, these key dimensions stem from the previously described analysis on tourism and non-tourism SC literature, spanning 29 years of research. Second, focusing on key dimensions, connecting them in the form of a process (with their specific functions within the process) and identifying the conditions that foster them, provides a better visualisation of the dimensions’ interdependences, and a previously inexistent integrated dimensional structure to think about a destination’s SC in a more systemic way. And third, this structure presents a key approach for tourist destinations’ SC by considering it as both a process and an outcome that strengthens or weakens itself at different points and levels of interaction through the process.

Figure 1.

Tourist destination’s SC emerging process.

Networks relates to the groups of a destination’s actors, providing the structure for interactions and is the relatively most tangible dimension. Its function is to serve as the social ‘space’ where interactions towards common goals are inputs in the process. Key conditions to foster networks are to strive for a balance between cooperation and competition, collective and individual interests and planning and acting.

Norms & Trust relates to principles and codes of conduct that form the cognitive environment, facilitating the mobilisation of individual resources towards common goals. This dimension is more intangible in relation to the Networks dimension. Its function is to provide a proper environment for decisions based on shared goals, beliefs and at least a minimum level of mutual confidence, acting as an input for, as well as an output from, collective actions. Key conditions are to foster codes of conduct, reciprocity or mutual benefits, and sanction mechanisms for those who do not comply.

Collective Action relates to the actual physical, intellectual, managerial, promotional or political work to generate the desired output, and demonstrates the capacity and benefits or damages of acting together. Here, SC transits from a potential into a realised resource. Its function is to evidence results, whose effects influence future initiatives. Key fostering conditions are to allocate resources (money, tools, skills, information), leadership, giving time, pursuing higher level goals and showing effective results.

We do not suggest that a destination’s SC is limited to the three dimensions identified in Figure 1, but this framework does offer a solid and organised basis to facilitate analytical application for different tourism cases. SC starts as a potential resource residing in the actors’ networks at different levels and once norms and trust facilitate purposive interactions, SC becomes manifest (either with positive or negative connotations) in the form of collective actions. The interactions of this process, and its results, influence the perceptions of the destination’s actors, strengthening or weakening them as a collective along the way, denoting the nature of SC simultaneously as an emerging process and as an outcome that feedbacks its own process.

Second focusing factor: SC’s levels of scope

Given that tourist destinations are formed by the aggregation of heterogeneous actors (governments, firms, residents) at various levels (local, regional, international), SC therefore can be assessed at different levels of scope. Tourism and non-tourism literature agree on three levels identifiable within a destination’s structure: bonding, bridging and linking (Dudwick et al., 2006; Grootaert et al., 2004; Jamieson, 2014; Macbeth et al., 2004; McGehee et al., 2010; Okazaki, 2008; Ooi et al., 2015a; Taylor, 2016; Williams and Elkhashab, 2012; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). Bonding SC points to the level of internal social ties in a group; bridging SC points to the level of horizontal social ties with new actors or groups; linking SC points to the level of vertical social ties with actors or groups in power or in control of key resources. These different levels of social ties are where SC resides.

Figure 2 illustrates these interrelations at different levels of scope in an interconnected and generalised form in the context of a tourist destination. Social ties and interactions, however, are dynamic, and SC does not emerge in a uniform way. For instance, in the same example of Figure 2, tour operators may initially see each other as competitors. Nevertheless, they also share common challenges, such as barriers to access source markets or promoting favourable laws. Thus, bonding ties emerge, at least among those who can foresee an individual benefit from an alliance. Within their association, those operators strive for a balance between cooperation and competition, and perhaps some codes of conduct on sensitive issues within the group, such as minimum price policies, need to be put into practice. At this level, collective actions, like co-funded promotional campaigns, could already take place. However, operators may also require access to specialised skills or financing, reaching out to actors beyond their group, such as Destination Management Organisations (DMO). Bridging ties emerge. Nevertheless, among the operators, only some might foresee benefits from this between-groups relationship, putting some stress in their bonding ties and generating different degrees of individual participation through the new bridging ties. In a next level, the DMO may facilitate access to resources from players in power positions, such as the central government, aid agencies or banks, to support collective actions such as the implementation of promotional and commercialisation platforms. Linking ties emerge. Access to those resources, however, may be subject to more formal rules, such as specific profiles or counterparts, which some operators may not comply with. This potentially demotivates non-participants weakening previously generated bonding and bridging SC in the short-term. But this may also stimulate SC in the mid/long-term, as current non-participants may seem motivated to adapt and qualify for future opportunities.

Figure 2.

Tourist destination’s SC types and their levels of scope.

This is one possible scenario of SC’s dynamics at different levels of scope. Combinations, however, can be endless, confirming SC’s non-linear and non-centrally controllable nature. And precisely for this, visualising different levels of scope is highly relevant for destinations to understand how relationships take place, and to identify the key actors that trigger or hinder those relationships, their motivations and intentions. This integrated, multi-level perspective, is fundamental to study how the destination can improve SC to self-determine its development path as a collective, because ‘[s]tates, firms, and communities alone do not possess the resources needed to promote broad-based, sustainable development’ (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000: 236).

Combining dimensions and levels of scope in an assessment matrix

Figure 3 presents a standard relational matrix that combines both previously discussed focusing factors: destination’s SC dimensions and levels of scope, to study a destination’s SC in a more organised and interconnected way. Now it is possible to focus on specific destinations’ SC dimensions: structure (networks), cognitive (norms & trust) and outcomes (collective actions); and at specific levels of scope: within the group (bonding), between groups (bridging) or with actors in power (linking). In that way, we can better identify the involved actors and the barriers and enhancers of their interrelations at different levels within the destination. This provides the basis to reflect on how to improve the destination’s collective capacity.

Figure 3.

Tourist destination’s SC assessment matrix.

This standard assessment matrix is a basis to guide analysis but does not imply that a destination is a homogeneous collective or that interactions are linear. If a destination is composed by different groups, at different geographic and institutional scales, neither the groups, nor the collective formed by them, are homogeneous. Multiple interactions happen simultaneously and continuously at different levels of scope within the destination. Furthermore, there could be individuals who belong to different groups. For example, a tour guide (as a person) or an attraction (as a firm), may also act as tour operation coordinators and participate as natural members of different groups, acting as potential bridging agents. Nevertheless, these multi-group individuals could also spread negative SC, for example, by resisting innovation or benefitting in detriment of their associates. Figure 3, therefore, is a guide to dive into the exploration of different contexts to reveal interactions and reflect on how to balance collective and individual interests.

Because of a destination’s heterogeneity, existing methods of assessing SC at the individual, household, community or national levels are not totally transferable to tourism. First, destinations need an integrated way of keeping the multi-scalar and the multi-sectoral nature of tourism under constant consideration. And second, current SC theory presents too much variation in terminology and methods. The assessment matrix, therefore, is especially relevant for destinations because they are dynamic entities, requiring dynamic approaches to look at them at different moments. Thus, considering that in a tourist destination interactions are complex (different groups, at different levels and locations), the assessment matrix (which includes an outcomes dimension – Collective actions – as part of the process) presents a dynamic approach by considering SC as both a process (going through the three key dimensions) and simultaneously as an outcome (emerging at different points and levels within the destination), which is constantly influencing its own process, weakening or strengthening the collective’s SC. This non-static nature of social interactions calls attention to the need to constantly reconsider through time why destinations’ actors (mostly conformed by SMEs usually avid of quick positive results) continue or quit their participation.

Application of the assessment matrix: some approaches

A systematic study of a destination’s SC (which was previously vaguely operationalised in tourist studies) can now be performed through the assessment matrix. Its structure facilitates the generation of a reflective, organised and interconnected knowledge from the case under study, as the basis to reflect upon the ultimate purpose: how to improve a destination’s SC towards self-determination.

For that, the matrix identifies three destination’s SC dimensions (horizontal axis, Figure 3) and crosses them with three SC’s levels of scope (vertical axis, Figure 3), generating nine cross-related focusing points. By progressively analysing each one of those crossed focusing points, we can reflect upon which actors are networking at what levels and between levels, what norms & (lack of) trust enhance or hinder actors’ interactions at the different levels, and how and why collective actions take or do not take place at different levels of scope within the destinations’ structure.

A different way to apply the matrix to ‘enter’ the destination is by using a reverse approach. The analyst starts by taking a destination’s given outcome to understand how the collective and its SC behaved in, for instance, the implementation of a tourism route where multiple actors participated. First, the analyst can look into the current state and implications (outcomes dimension) of that initiative, at the different levels of the destination’s SC structure. Second, the analyst can describe the norms and (lack of) trust (cognitive dimension) that lead to those results. And third, the destination’s actors and key roles (networks – the structural dimension) at the different SC’s levels of scope can be identified.

Another way to apply the matrix is to take a central actor approach, such as a DMO, as the entry point to study the destination’s SC dynamics. Here each one of the matrix’s focusing points help to reflect on the stakeholders directly and indirectly related to the central actor (networks – structural dimension) at different levels of scope. Then the analysis will focus on the norms and (lack of) trust (cognitive dimension) that allows or hinders the DMO’s SC to achieve effective results. And finally, the analyst will reflect on the outcomes and the broader implications (results dimension) of the DMO’s collective actions at the different levels of scope within the destination.

Although the previously suggested approaches are already used in tourism studies, the contribution of the assessment matrix is that now those approaches can be placed within the context of a destination’s SC and serve as different ways to study how to improve collective capacities for self-determination.

Conclusion

A destination can be seen as a collective of actors trying to act together, interacting at different levels, within a complex scenario of relationships. The definition of the tourist destination, thus, should go beyond politico-administrative boundaries, and into the notion of a territory dynamically determined by the location of the involved actors as a collective. Nevertheless, if this collective wants to self-determine a common future through tourism, they need to share some goals and mobilise resources, which have varied ownership, availability, quality, quantity and influence to achieve those goals.

SC is the resource that allows mobilisation of other resources towards common goals, either with positive or negative effects. The fundamental challenge is, therefore, how to study destinations’ SC to reflect on their capacity to self-determine their development path as a collective. SC theory offers the basis to tackle this question. Nevertheless, its application in tourism is dispersed and SC is not the research subject, but only a means to study other tourism-related subjects.

This article, therefore, has contributed by presenting a standardised and integrated framework, and different approaches, to assess and improve a tourist destination’s SC. Based on tourism- and non-tourism-related theory and methodologies, the article has determined SC’s three key dimensions, its emerging process, conditions to foster it and its three levels of scope within a tourist destination. These determinations are especially important to set SC within the context of tourist destinations as the tourism phenomenon is also multidimensional and has multiple levels of aggregation. Thus, this article has also taken into consideration the non-linear and non-centrally controllable nature of SC, which are also characteristics of tourist destinations. The discussion also highlighted the importance of seeing SC in tourism simultaneously as a process and as an outcome that feedbacks its own emerging process, and a process that is in constant transformation. The assessment matrix, therefore, integrates those principles into a framework that allows a structured and organised way of analysis and reflection on tourist destinations’ SC as the object of study.

Several conditions were also mentioned to foster each SC’s key dimension specifically. Nonetheless in a more general perspective, we argue that SC enhancement at the destination level depends on sustained processes, through its three dimensions and levels of scope, facilitated by brokering actors that have the technical, legal and political capacity to play that role. The assessment matrix, therefore, represents a comprehensive ‘guide’ to better understand how SC works in a specific case, and to reflect on how to improve outcomes. It is expected that by contributing to the understanding of SC at the destination level, actors further realise that the achievement of their development goals depends on their capacity to collectively conceive initiatives and commit resources in a way that fosters networks, trust and collective actions, more than on their capacity for isolated efforts.

Also, we expect that the framework contributes to further develop theory on destinations’ SC enhancement as a key resource for collective actions and self-determination. For that, future work should draw on the application of the assessment matrix to diverse study cases in order to refine it, improve it and advance on the understanding of SC in tourist destinations. However, this call for empirical analysis may take different approaches. Some may attempt to validate the model by testing the links between the dimensions and levels of scope presented in Figure 3. This could be done, for example, through factorial analyses, structural equation models or surveys. Nevertheless, while such tests may somehow confirm the model itself, they may not explain what happens in reality within the tourist destination’s SC. Thus, we call for scholars and researchers to keep in mind the purpose of the model; that is, to facilitate an organised analysis of complex social interactions within a tourist destination, which in turn, may provide insights for the improvement of its collective capacity and self-determination. We recommend, therefore, that research efforts consider the discussion in the subsection “Application of the assessment matrix: some approaches” within their aims. Doing so may also provide valuable contributions for practice in the related study cases, further than only aiming for theoretical and academic contributions.

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: This article is part of the Doctoral research of Juan Santiago Rodríguez Girón which is funded by a grant from the Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología (SENESCYT) of Ecuador.

ORCID iD

Santiago Rodriguez-Giron

Author biographies

Santiago Rodriguez-Giron is doctoral researcher at KU Leuven. His research subject is how to enhance tourist destinations to attract international visitors that meet local development goals. He has solid experience in tourism management and facilitation for development initiaives, mainly in UNESCO sites. His interests are systems thinking, collective action, market access, ICTs and the links between theory and practice for sustainable tourism development.

Dominique Vanneste is full professor at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Division of Geography & Tourism. She is involved in the research groups of Human Geography and Tourism and is the director of a Research and Development Unit ‘ASTOR’ (Association for Tourism Research) as well as program director for the Erasmus Mundus Master in Sustainable Territorial Development. Her main research interests and lecturing topics are: Economic geography, Historical geography and Tourism.

References

Barbini

(2008) ‘Capital social y desarrollo. Aplicación de indicadores de capital social al ámbito turístico [Application of Social Capital Indicators in the Field of Tourism]’, Aportes y Transferencias 12(2): 65–91.

Beritelli

(2011) ‘Cooperation among Prominent Actors in a Tourist Destination’, Annals of Tourism Research 38(2): 607–29.

Beritelli

Bieger

Laesser

(2014) ‘The New Frontiers of Destination Management: Applying Variable Geometry as a Function-Based Approach’, Journal of Travel Research 53(4): 403–17.

Bourdieu

(1986) ‘The Forms of Capital’, pp. 241–58 in Richardson

J. G.

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Bramwell

Lane

(2011) ‘Critical Research on the Governance of Tourism and Sustainability’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19: 411–21.

Brohman

(1996) ‘New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development’, Annals of Tourism Research 23(1): 48–70.

Burt

(1993) ‘The Social Structure of Competition’, pp. 65–103 in Swedberg

(ed.) Explorations in Economic Sociology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Coleman

J. S.

(1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard university press.

Dudwick

Kuehnast

Nyhan Jones

et al . (2006) Analyzing Social Capital in Context: A Guide to Using Qualitative Methods and Data. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

10.

Gaag

M. V. D.

Webber

(2008) ‘Measurement of Individual Social Capital’, pp. 29–49 in Kawachi

Subramanian

S. V.

Kim

(eds) Social Capital and Health. New York: Springer.

11.

Gil

M. Á. R.

Martínez

T. M.

(2012) ‘El capital social como factor coadyuvante de los procesos de desarrollo turístico y socioeconómico de los destinos de interior [Social Capital as Supporting Factor for the Tourism and Socioeconomic Development Process of Inner Destinations]’, Papers de Turisme 45: 40–55.

12.

Grootaert

van Bastelar

(2002) Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

13.

Grootaert

Narayan

Nyhan Jones

et al . (2004) Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire (SC-IQ). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

14.

Halkier

Kozak

Svensson

(2014) ‘Innovation and Tourism Destination Development’, European Planning Studies 22(8): 1547–50.

15.

Harrison

(2014) ‘Tourism and Development. From Development Theory to Globalization’, pp. 143–54 in Lew

A. A.

Hall

C. M.

Williams

A. M.

(eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Tourism, 1st edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

16.

Hartman

(2016) ‘Towards Adaptive Tourism Areas? A Complexity Perspective to Examine the Conditions for Adaptive Capacity’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(2): 299–314.

17.

Häuberer

(2011) Social Capital Theory, 1st edn. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

18.

Haugland

S. A.

Ness

Grønseth

B.-O.

et al . (2011) ‘Development of Tourism Destinations: An Integrated Multilevel Perspective’, Annals of Tourism Research 38(1): 268–90.

19.

Jamieson

(2014) ‘Sport Tourism Events as Community Builders – How Social Capital Helps the ‘Locals’ Cope’, Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 15(1): 57–68.

20.

Lansing

Vries

P. D.

(2006) ‘Sustainable Tourism: Ethical Alternative or Marketing Ploy?’ Journal of Business Ethics 72: 77–85.

21.

Levien

(2015) ‘Social Capital as Obstacle to Development: Brokering Land, Norms, and Trust in Rural India’, World Development 74: 77–92.

22.

Lin

(2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Macbeth

Carson

Northcote

(2004) ‘Social Capital, Tourism and Regional Development: SPCC as a Basis for Innovation and Sustainability’, Current Issues in Tourism 7(6): 502–22.

24.

McGehee

N. G.

Lee

O’Bannon

T. L.

et al . (2010) ‘Tourism-Related Social Capital and Its Relationship with Other Forms of Capital: An Exploratory Study’, Journal of Travel Research 49(4): 486–500.

25.

Mai

Smith

(2015) ‘Addressing the Threats to Tourism Sustainability Using Systems Thinking: A Case Study of Cat Ba Island, Vietnam’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(10): 1504–28.

26.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998) ‘Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage’, Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–66.

27.

Neilson

(2014) ‘Value Chains, Neoliberalism and Development Practice: The Indonesian Experience’, Review of International Political Economy 21(1): 38–69.

28.

Nyhan Jones

Woolcock

(2009) ‘Mixed Methods Assessment (Social Capital)’, pp. 379–401 in Svendsen

G. T.

Svendsen

G. L. H.

(eds) Handbook of Social Capital: The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

29.

Okazaki

(2008) ‘A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(5): 511–29.

30.

Ooi

C.-A.

Hooy

C.-W.

Mat Som

A. P.

(2015a) ‘Diversity in Human and Social Capital: Empirical Evidence from Asian Tourism Firms in Corporate Board Composition’, Tourism Management 48: 139–53.

31.

Ooi

Laing

Mair

(2015b) ‘Social Capital as a Heuristic Device to Explore Sociocultural Sustainability: A Case Study of Mountain Resort Tourism in the Community of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(3): 417–36.

32.

Park

D.-B.

Lee

K.-W.

Choi

H.-S.

et al . (2012) ‘Factors Influencing Social Capital in Rural Tourism Communities in South Korea’, Tourism Management 33(6): 1511–20.

33.

Pearce

D. G.

(2008) ‘A Needs-Functions Model of Tourism Distribution’, Annals of Tourism Research 35(1): 148–68.

34.

Pike

Page

S. J.

(2014) ‘Destination Marketing Organizations and Destination Marketing: A Narrative Analysis of the Literature’, Tourism Management 41: 202–27.

35.

Portes

(2000) ‘The Two Meanings of Social Capital’, Sociological Forum 15(1): 1–12.

36.

Putnam

R. D.

(1995) ‘Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America’, PS: Political Science and Politics 28(4): 664–83.

37.

Saarinen

(2014) ‘Transforming Destinations: A Discursive Approach to Tourist Destinations and Development’, pp. 47–62 in Viken

Granås

(eds) Tourism Destination Development: Turns and Tactics. Surrey; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

38.

Sander

Lowney

(2006) Social Capital Building Toolkit, version 1.2. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

39.

Saraniemi

Kylänen

(2011) ‘Problematizing the Concept of Tourism Destination: An Analysis of Different Theoretical Approaches’, Journal of Travel Research 50(2): 133–43.

40.

Schmidt

C. M.

Cielo

I. D.

Wenningkamp

K. R.

et al . (2016) ‘Collective Actions in Sustainable Rural Tourism: A Case Study of the Western Region of Paraná’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 33(2): 249–58.

41.

Sharpley

(2009) Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability? 1st edn. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

42.

Song

Liu

Chen

(2013) ‘Tourism Value Chain Governance: Review and Prospects’, Journal of Travel Research 52(1): 15–28.

43.

Taylor

S. R.

(2016) ‘Issues in Measuring Success in Community-Based Indigenous Tourism: Elites, Kin Groups, Social Capital, Gender Dynamics and Income Flows’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25(3): 433–49.

44.

Thomas

Shaw

Page

S. J.

(2011) ‘Understanding Small Firms in Tourism: A Perspective on Research Trends and Challenges’, Tourism Management 32(5): 963–76.

45.

Vanneste

Ryckaert

(2011) ‘Networking and Governance as Success Factors for Rural Tourism? The Perception of Tourism Entrepreneurs in the Vlaamse Ardennen’, Bulletin de La Société Géographique de Liège 57(2): 53–71.

46.

Vanneste

Ryckaert

(2012) ‘Governance in the Tourism Practice. Entrepreneurial Attitudes’, pp. 303–23 in Fayos-Solas

de Silva

J. A. M.

Jafari

(eds) Knowledge Management in Tourism: Policy and Governance Applications, Vol. 4. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

47.

Viken

(2014) ‘Destinations Discourses and the Growth Paradigm’, pp. 21–46 in Viken

Granås

(eds) Tourism Destination Development: Turns and Tactics. Surrey; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

48.

Von Friedrichs Grängsjö

Gummesson

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

49.

Weaver

(2014) ‘The Sustainable Development of Tourism: A State-Of Perspective’, pp. 524–33 in Lew

A. A.

Hall

C. M.

Williams

A. M.

(eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Tourism, 1st edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

50.

Williams

A. M.

Shaw

(2011) ‘Internationalization and Innovation in Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 38(1): 27–51.

51.

Williams

P. W.

Elkhashab

(2012) ‘Leveraging Tourism Social Capital: The Case of the 2010 Olympic Tourism Consortium’, International Journal of Event and Festival Management 3(3): 317–34.

52.

Woolcock

Narayan

(2000) ‘Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy’, The World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 225–49.

53.

Zhao

Ritchie

J. R. B.

Echtner

C. M.

(2011) ‘Social Capital and Tourism Entrepreneurship’, Annals of Tourism Research 38(4): 1570–93.