Governance in tourist destinations: challenges in modern Society

Gobernanza en destinos turísticos: desafíos en la sociedad contemporánea

Abstract

The topic of tourism governance in tourist destinations has been widely discussed in the literature and, although many benefits have been recognized, studies have shown that there are still structural gaps. Therefore, based on a conjunctural analysis of different factors identified in the literature, the objective of this paper is to discuss the main challenges of building governance capacity in tourist destinations. In order to understand how to preserve tourist destinations, understanding how to manage them, while also considering their weaknesses, is vital. To this end, this study used the ProKnow-C methodology, which involved a review of both domestic and international scientific journals that are rated between B1 and A1 by Capes. The study revealed that the main challenges to tourism governance can be divided into one of two categories: institutional and organizational. The former refers to issues related to the State, whereas the latter refers to the relationships among stakeholders who participate in tourism governance. Thus, we conclude that institutional and organizational challenges should be broken in favor of a conjunctural, not structural, reading of reality.

Keywords:
Governance; Tourist Destinations; State; Networks

Resumen

La gobernanza turística en destinos turísticos ha sido un tema ampliamente debatido en la literatura y, a pesar de preconizar diversos beneficios, estudios realizados demuestran lagunas en su constitución y, por eso, este trabajo tiene como objetivo principal, discutir los principales desafíos para la construcción de la gobernanza turismo en destinos, a partir de un análisis coyuntural enfocado en los diferentes factores señalados en la literatura. En este prisma, se comprende que, en un contexto de búsqueda de sostenibilidad de los destinos turísticos, se hace necesario saber cómo gestionarlos, fundamentalmente a considerar sus fragilidades. Para ello, se utilizó la metodología ProKnow-C para recolección de datos, a través de investigación en periódicos científicos, tanto nacionales como internacionales, clasificados por la Capes en el ámbito de A1 a B1. Como principales los resultados, se constató que el estudio presentó que los desafíos básicos de la gobernanza en destinos turísticos se dividen en dos tipos, que son: institucionales y organizacionales. La primera se refiere a cuestiones asociadas al Estado y la segunda se refiere a la relación entre los actores participantes de la red de gobernanza en turismo. Se concluye, de esta forma, que los desafíos institucionales y organizacionales deben ser rotos, buscando una lectura coyuntural y no estructural de las realidades.

Palavras clave:
Gobernanza; Destinos Turismo; Estado; Redes

Resumo

A governança turística em destinos turísticos tem sido um tema amplamente debatido na literatura e apesar de preconizar diversos benefícios, estudos demonstram lacunas na sua constituição. Por isto, este trabalho tem como objetivo discutir os principais desafios para a construção da governança de destinos turísticos, a partir de uma análise conjuntural focada nos diferentes fatores sinalizados na literatura. Entende-se que em um contexto de busca de sustentabilidade dos destinos turísticos, faz-se necessário saber como geri-los, considerando suas fragilidades. Para tanto, utilizou-se a metodologia ProKnow-C, através de pesquisa em periódicos científicos tanto nacional como internacional, classificados pela Capes no escopo de A1 até B1. O estudo apresentou que os principais desafios da governança em destinos turísticos são divididos em dois tipos: institucionais e organizacionais. A primeira refere-se a questões associadas ao Estado e a segunda refere-se à relação entre os atores participantes da rede de governança em turismo. Conclui-se, desta forma, que os desafiosinstitucionais e organizacionais devem ser rompidos, visando uma leitura conjuntural e não estrutural das realidades.

Palavras-chave:
Governança; Destinos turísticos; Estado; Redes

1 INTRODUCTION

Over the last two decades, there has been increasing scientific interest in studying tourism governance (Caffyn & Jobbin, 2003; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Hall, 2011; Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Wan & Bramwell, 2015), which have contributed to a greater understanding of modern social organizations. These social organizations are reinforced by the participation and articulation of stakeholders responsible for regional tourism development processes.

The concept of tourism governance is not new, despite a lack of consensus on how to define it, which is perhaps why it is often mistaken for government. It emerged in the 1970s during the governability crisis to understand whether the new administrative structures, through their processes, could establish consensus and solve conflicts.

According to several authors, (Hall, 2011; Velasco Gonzalez, 2013; Nóbrega & Figueiredo, 2014; Wan & Bramwell, 2015; Valente, Dredge & Lohmann, 2015; Qian et al., 2016; Tretin, 2016), in addition to building consensus in conflict situations, tourism governance also brings benefits such as efficiency, efficacy, fairness, transparency, accountability, cooperation, and legitimacy, given that it involves collective decision-making through political democracy with social participation represented by diverse interests. These benefits have been widely discussed and have formed the basis of political, social, and business discourses.

Although tourism governance provides a series of benefits based on cooperation, it is not exempt of power relations, i.e., the essence of State organized society (Castells, 2000). Tourism, therefore, imposes numerous challenges, given its idiosyncrasies, because on the one hand there are profit-seeking private interests involved, and on the other hand, it requires shared actions, especially within and among tourist destinations (Velasco Gonzalez, 2013).

Given the current debate on destination sustainability, it is important to reflect upon planning and management tools, considering process participants’ collective interests. With that in mind, this paper seeks to discuss the primary challenges in building governance in tourist destinations by using a conjunctural analysis that focuses on different factors identified in the literature.

The paper is divided into four sections, besides this introduction. Section 2 presents the methodology used to carry out this study. Section 3 discusses the concept of State and how its behavior throughout the last three decades has been reflected in studies on tourism governance. This is referred to as institutional challenges, as was revealed in the research. The fourth section discusses the concepts of governance associated with notions of stakeholder networks and how these members are interconnected in the process given the challenges of tourist governance in tourist destinations. This scenario is referred to as organizational challenges. Finally, concluding remarks are presented and findings are discussed, along with suggestions for future research, including strengths and weaknesses of the sustainability paradigm in tourist destinations, while keeping in mind the topic of governance.

2 STUDY DESIGN

Considering the nature of the research question, as well as the level of detail, we chose to carry out a descriptive and exploratory study of a qualitative nature, given that this type of analysis is specifically used when the research topic has been relatively unexplored, and seeks to clarify and modify concepts, and search for answers to complex problems. This approach was based on a literature review.

This study presents a theoretical discussion of tourism governance in tourist destinations and, to support the reflections and approach the topics, our study used the methodology developed by Ensslin et al. (2010) known as ProKnow-C-Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist-that explains the research steps in phases, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1:
Summary of ProKnow-C Procedure used to select the bibliographic portfolio

For this study we adopted the following keywords linked to the topic: governance, tourism, State, public policies, and networks, which were searched in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. The terms were put into academic paper search engines, both in isolation and combined, between August and November 2017 to collect the data. The adherence test was used, and its use was confirmed. The scientific database used contains articles in tourism with a high impact factor, especially with regards to international journals. The adopted criteria were that both Brazilian or international journals had to have a Capes-the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel-classification between A1 and B1 in the division of Administration, Accounting and Tourism. A few of these selected articles are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1:
Journals used in our study that have a Capes classification of between A1 and B1

Brazilian journals	International journals
Caderno Virtual de Turismo, Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, Turismo: Visão e Ação,	Cuadernos de Turismo, Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, E-review of Tourism Research, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Tourism and Hospitality Research

• Source: the authors, based on the 2018 Capes classification.

Once we defined the journals, we moved to the next phase of the ProKnow-C methodology, which is to exclude duplicate articles, identify their suitability based on their titles and abstracts and, finally, do a full reading of the remaining papers that had titles and abstracts aligned with our study interests. The bibliographic portfolio is shown in Table 2 and separated by topic.

Table 2:
Basic bibliographic research portfolio

Guiding themes	Articles
Conceptual approach to governance	Velasco Gonzalez (2010); Tretin (2016); Hall (2011); Erkus-Ozturk & Eraydin (2010); Wan & Bramwell (2015); Valente, Dredge & Lohmann (2015).
Governance and its relationship with the State and public policies	Tang (2017); Andrades & Dinamache (2017); Doods & Butler (2010); Baum (1994); Estol & Font (2016); Garcia (2014); Almeida García, Balbuena Vázquez & Cortés Macías, 2015.
Governance and stakeholder networks	Bramwell & Sharmam (1999); Qian et al. (2016); Urano, Siqueira & Nóbrega (2016); Tineo & Tomazzoni (2017); Velasco Gonzalez (2010); Tretin (2016).

• Source: the authors, 2018.

This portfolio formed the basis for our discussion. The topics were divided according to how they were explained in the articles we read. We noticed a clear predominance of international articles over domestic articles on these topics.

It should be noted that a literature review was also conducted based on books by classic authors who discuss these topics. In this case, data were analyzed for content by considering the topical area, within the three large topics shown in Table 2.

3 INVOLVEMENT OF THE STATE IN DIRECTING TOURISM: INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

For centuries, social changes have pressed the State to adopt different ways of responding to an environment of opposing interests and power dynamics. With this, diverse State regimes have appeared, including: the modern State, the absolute State, the socialist State, the capitalist State, and the liberal State, in an attempt to have greater control, and more legitimacy, whether through the means of production or social environment.

The primary responsibility of the State is to maintain order and defend the collective public interests, i.e., to seek an equal society and, although regulated and provided by the State, the public “good” involves the preferences and wills of everyone in society by means of relationships, that is, the search for a society of equals (Bresser-Pereira, 1995; Dias & Matos, 2012).

It so happens that the public good is an instrument of State action, being the government the administrator of these resources, responsible for maintaining order and security (Dias & Matos, 2012). In this case, administration of State business is carried out by governments that must act in the name of the State, albeit in some periods may be characterized by renewal.

Dias and Matos (2012) argue that because elected members of government serve predetermined terms and hold private interests of their own, the State works to attend to these interests while they are in office. Furthermore, the authors state that this behavior enables personal governments to be formed, which is one of the characteristics that the literature has identified as posing a challenge to tourism governance (Araújo et al., 2016; Dias & Matos, 2012). This way of governing is based on individualism and little cooperation, where people are valued over institutions as a collective.

Nóbrega (2012) highlights that public tourism arenas, which seek to democratically discuss the best decisions toward planning and management, are linked to a process of aggregate individual preferences instilled by their legal representatives and, therefore, they do not incorporate a deliberative dimension sensu stricto of forming and transforming preferences by building consensus and discussing dissent. Moreover, governing bodies are believed to be discouraged from participating in planning and management processes given the overlapping actions triggered by the result of numerous failed attempts at creating tourism policies since the 1970s. Additionally, the author points out that tourism governing bodies have adopted organizational structures that attend to their individual preferences, based solely on economic gains. An example of this is the Tourism Regionalization Program (TRP), which is built on elaborating tangible products from tourist itineraries, i.e., based on commercial interests, rather than on promoting local/regional development as defended by the program. These actions do not consider the basic concept of endogenous development, which seeks the economic, social, and cultural wellbeing of the local communities through active participation of society, but rather fulfill the almost exclusive interests of reproducing international financial capital.

A study by Araújo et al. (2016) is consistent with this perspective by revealing, for example, that the difficulty of operationalizing tourism governance is directly related to the difficulty of continuing political actions in the country, given that in many cases when new public administrators take office, they do not give continuity to previous activities.

Coutinho (2015), on the other hand, points out that because political personalism creates a focus geared only toward the interests of the administration, specifically the lead administrator, this also contributes to discontinuity of actions and a strong political dependency. The inverse of this would be the search for collective actions and the common good, regardless of the administration or political office held.

There are many risks with this model, given that when new public officials are sworn in there is an expectation placed upon them by society to be innovative in solving problems and that, when problems do arise, they will be solved quickly, therefore giving a personal touch to the new government. Thus, personalism is an obstacle to building a democratic and participatory administration, which is a characteristic of tourism governance. Public officials act on behalf of the few pursuing their own interests.

The State, therefore, takes on different roles in different contexts, considering the various forms of pressure imposed upon it. Dias and Matos (2012) argue that the role of the State should be fourfold: regulator, facilitator, ally, and supporter of public decisions. Furthermore, they argue that “these four roles should not necessarily be carried out separately, nor should the mechanisms of one in relation to the others be excluded” (p. 193). They should be considered as a combination of factors to attend to diverse existing interests in the political game.

For their part, Velasco González (2013) and Tretin (2016) have a much more objective view and emphasize the need for a coordination role, given the conflicting objectives facing the modern world. The OECD (2013) also reinforces the need for coordination to improve the results of public actions and generate positive results in tourism governance building.

It is important to consider that over the last few years a new way of doing politics has been proclaimed around the world, and consequently in Brazil, based on decentralized ideas. However, in Brazil this has not been accompanied by institutional capacity at municipal level. The focus, instead, has been the dispute among local elites (Arretche, 1998), thus a decentralization of diverse centralized governments has emerged by way of regulation, which is the second challenge to tourism governance.

This characteristic-regulator-is rooted in the history of the State, which was responsible for controlling centralized processes in search of the common good of society. The role of regulator responded to the needs of its context but does not meet the contemporary search for participatory spaces.

Macêdo et al. (2016) assert that the role of the State in directing tourism is a key element, despite its limitations and difficulties, especially in the democratic context of decentralizing actions together with the other stakeholders involved. In a study carried out in Japan, Seki (2013) points out that given the diverse interests, the role of the State coordinator is not an easy task, however, it guarantees the effectiveness and sustainability of tourist destinations in the context of social democracy. Therefore, the author argues that the State should stop being a regulator and become a coordinator of public actions, thereby avoiding a relationship of dependence in favor of overcoming the hierarchical paradigm for the common good.

Establishing more coordinated actions could occur in practical terms, via public policies, as an instrument of state action (Schenkel & Almeida, 2015). The definition of public policies, in this sense, is a term that has been highly debated in the literature and each author holds their own vision and perception, thus generating a universally accepted “non-definition”. However, most definitions describe the decision-making process among governments which, over time are not only inserted in the process, but also become stakeholders in decisions on public polices (Goeldner & Brent, 2011; Cruz, 2000; Velasco Gonzalez, 2013).

If there is no consensus on the definition, it is important to clarify what is not tourism public policy. According to Velasco Gonzalez (2013) tourism policy is not: a) any public action related to tourism, b) any approval of sector norms or c) simply a political intention to work with tourism. Based on this, we understand tourism public policy to be a set of actions of public actors who, in collaboration with other sectors, aim to achieve different goals related to various tourism phenomena. Coherent tourism actions are pursued, with clearly defined problems and clear roles for public stakeholders who should dialogue with their peers. Tourism goals and/or any actions should be set aside and move toward observing the problems related to tourism and anticipate them with all their relationships.

The reasons for promoting tourism in a given location should be explicit in any given public policy. This is also why some policies work well in a given location and not in others, i.e., State focus/action when directing tourism initiatives. However, economic impacts have been the most relevant motives to stimulate and/or develop actions (Tang, 2017; Garcia & Chahine, 2016; Estol & Font, 2016), not only from a public administration’s point of view, but also from that of residents’ (Garcia et al., 2015) who observe a range of both positive and negative factors related to tourism.

Despite advocating for economic improvements and witnessing many speeches in this sense, the policies that highlight tourism as a means of income generation and social changes are not very effective. In Europe, Doods and Butlet (2010) point out that Spain’s public policies put economic questions above environmental questions and that this type of immediatism is related to short term actions based on the personalism and discontinuity of their governments. In Eurasia, Andrades and Dinamache (2017) discuss Russia’s model of governance which, despite the country’s great potential, does not consider tourism to be a priority and faces many challenges to becoming a competitive tourism destination. In South America, Araújo et al. (2016) carried out studies in Northeast Brazil and revealed that, despite financial investment in tourism, the actions do not have due relevance, which cause diverse problems such as decreased tourism in the area and impacts on the local communities. What these studies have in common is that inclusion of tourism in the public agenda as a priority remain far from being attained, thus revealing a great weakness for tourism to contribute to local development and improved economic conditions. Public policies remain a discourse without tangible results.

On the other hand, there are positive results when there is investment in tourism, thus revealing that it can be rewarding to invest in tourism. Studies by Schenkel and Almeida (2015) contribute to this perspective, for example, in Argentina, where public investment in tourism was given priority to pull the country out of an economic crisis in 2001. Social and economic relationships formed without State dominance. The State played a minimal role of merely coordinating and investing in tourism actions.

Investment in basic infrastructure does not necessarily imply investing in tourism policies and/or that it is a tourism public policy, as evidenced by Velasco Gonzalez (2013). There is a shortage of resources for tourism and lack of objectivity in action. Therefore, its relevance is diminished despite the magnitude of this practice and political, social, and business discourses consistent with the third challenge of tourism governance.

We understand the State as the driver of tourism actions and initiatives, which can either directly influence decisions through public policies, or indirectly influence decisions through transversal actions or through organizations in the new social context. With this, the State’s performance and the direction of contemporary public policies are driven by a complex, interdependent, and dynamic issue correlated with diverse sectors in order to be successful. Not only public policies should be analyzed, but also the conjuncture that will delimit the direction of the State toward tourism development actions.

In this context, Gonzalez and Tretin (2014) assert that the various dimensions of public policies can be analyzed with two types of tools: (1) essential tools that include traditional administrative structures (National Tourism Administrations-NTA, such as the Ministry of Tourism) and executive administrative structures (National Tourism Organisms, such as the National Tourism Bureau, which the government uses to that end); and (2) procedural tools that presuppose a focus on networks with a certain organizational autonomy, such as public and private cooperation arenas and governing bodies. The procedural tools provide a new tone to tourism dynamics and operationalization in destinations. This group is more spread out and encompasses a certain organizational autonomy which, from either voluntary or involuntary cooperative initiatives, contribute to tourism management in tourist destinations.

Therefore, organizational tools are integrated by public, executive, and cooperative institutions (Figure 2). Implementation of public policies requires the involvement of collective actions, and procedural tools corroborate this new context in order for these policies to be successful.

Figure 2:
Public tourism policy organizational tools

These tools can be either analyzed in sequence-as is commonly done in the case of Latin America, or randomly-as done in developed countries where often there is not a definite public policy, but rather political actions, given that the existence of a policy does not necessarily imply execution (Baum, 1994).

This new way of doing politics is rooted in the process of increasing industrial and financial monopoly, which has altered how capital is accumulated and has opened the markets to foreign investors, thereby bringing about a reorganization of local roles of administrative power. On the other hand, a process of increasing pressure and social demand by society has also occurred, thus giving way to opinions and expectations. Therefore, it is not surprising that this contradictory situation of big economic interests on the part of administrators needs to change in favor of more dialogue and participation (Alió & Jori, 2011).

Social participation in this process is a sine qua non condition for the process of modern representative democracy. In this sense, Tineo and Tomazzoni (2017) argue the need for the State to share power with society in a democracy for tourism governance to be successful. Baum (1994) and Qian et al. (2016) believe that it is the community who holds practical knowledge, which is why the human factor is consistent in the process of developing policies, but that public decisions carry out a dictatorial position, which is why they are seen as peripheral to the process. Participation in its widest concept, with mechanisms and clear participation rules, is not allowed to happen.

The lack of autonomy and public administration centralization are major impediments to governance. It is through opportunities for the local communities that tourism can develop. The dictatorial attitude, revealed in the studies, corroborates the fourth institutional challenge to tourism governance in tourist destinations.

Thus, the origins of changes to States in the globalized world remain rooted in its historical course that carries with it a conservatism which challenges the consolidation of tourism governance. The theoretical discussions revealed that there is a traditional model that conflicts with what theory advocates to be beneficial to the context of new structures of management that are drawn in Figure 3.

Figure 3:
Institutional challenges to tourism governance.

Thus, considering Figure 3, we can see that there is a strong personalistic characteristic to governments, which continues to predominate in postmodern societies that yearn for more democratic and collective actions. Based on this, the authors Velasco Gonzalez (2013), Tretin (2016), OCDE (2013), and Seki (2013) argue that the State adopt more of a coordinator role to guide actions which, according to several studies (Macêdo et al., 2016; Seki, 2013), has shown to be more efficient in locations that have adopted this action. However, the regulatory and hierarchical positions of States prevail, which are directly linked to their history. This regulatory attitude, in turn, does not benefit the inclusion of tourism as a priority in the public agenda, which means that the activity, as an element of development and economic enhancement of a place, remains in discourses through public policy actions and with little practical effect with more effective guidelines that can contribute to the process of tourism development in a wider context. Moreover, there is a process of social change that is fighting for more participatory spaces (Tineo & Tomazzoni, 2017; Baum, 1994; Qian et al.) within a democratic context that directly confronts the dictatorial position of the State.

In this sense, there is a search for a new paradigm of State action in directing tourism in search of more collective and participatory actions, by means of a State attitude of coordinator, managing resources and offering objectivity in tourism actions that lead to an actual enhancement of local development of tourist destinations. The emphasis of this paper is placed on this concept of a new State attitude. Therefore, in section 4 the elements of governance will be discussed, focusing on stakeholder networks and their organizational challenges.

4 TOURISM GOVERNANCE AND NETWORKS IN TOURIST DESTINATIONS: ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES

The literature points out that the term tourism governance is related to how to govern, which implies resizing command and control by the State, which then begins to include new stakeholders in the decision-making process through new decision-making structures, mechanisms, and procedures regarding tourism planning and operations.

According to Hall (2011) governance is associated with the act of governing, “the search to understand forms of State action to mediate social and economic development, and political problems at a time when the State itself has changed”. This change begins by inserting new stakeholders into the development process, which goes beyond government issues.

In Wan and Bramwell’s (2015) perspective, governance involves both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders who work collectively toward a common goal or social order. The role of coordinating new challenges is attributed to the State.

Valente, Dredge and Lohmann (2015) define governance as a process that guarantees greater transparency, accountability, efficacy, efficiency, participation, and legitimacy which can be reached through public-private agreements.

All these definitions share a tendency to understand governance as either a process that is inherent to the government or a way to govern. However, Velasco Gonzalez (2013) understands governance to be a decision-making organizational procedure that includes more than just government actions. For the author, governance is a “new way of leading innovation processes and strengthening and changing tourism dynamics in a determined space that incorporates public and private stakeholders in order to make collective decisions”. With that, governance can be considered a process, rather than an end in itself, that includes changes to the State by incorporating diverse stakeholders into the decision-making process.

In Brazil, the approach to tourism governance has been based on structuring and organizing tourism in a given region by grouping municipalities together, thus reinforcing articulation through networks. With this, institutions have now begun to organize into interorganizational networks as a result of the rationality of a new social, cultural, and political dynamics of a given region.

Who are these stakeholders who overtake public administration in the governing process? They are primarily divided into three types: private sector stakeholders, public sector stakeholders, and civil society (also known as the third sector).

• Private sector stakeholders: They have financial capital and represent business owners of the tourism industry who stimulate industry growth through their private investments, which is why many plans and programs to support tourism development are directed toward these stakeholders. They have strong economic and competitive characteristics, given that they seek short-term profits. According to Velasco Gonzalez (2013), they have a high degree of autonomy and flexibility (Seki, 2013; Coutinho, 2015; Velasco Gonzalez, 2013).

• Public sector stakeholders: The administrative structures responsible for creating decision-making and participation boards, and other types of organizational boards. They have political power and their primary role is to provide goods and services, secure and manage resources, accumulate information, and provide advice. Their actions are strongly linked to their surroundings. Their main characteristics, the diverse pressures they have suffered throughout history, and the resulting effects on tourism governance were discussed in the previous section (Dias & Matos, 2012; Andrades & Dinamache, 2017; Velasco Gonzalez, 2010).

• Community/third sector: There is a group of stakeholders that is more spread out than the previous two groups and is called the third sector. The third sector emerged in Europe as a representative societal system. In Brazil, it emerged together with international cooperation projects as a progressive form of consolidating democracy, which is why it is associated with an intellectual power, either due to members’ ability to organize or by its results. Their structures in the tourism industry are organized in various ways: associations, chambers, conventions bureau, universities, etc. Through their representation, they seek to legitimize the decision-making process (Qian et al., 2016; Baum, 1994).

Thus, governance is formed by three types of stakeholders who hold different powers and who must work together to decide on the common good and how best to direct tourist activities. Tourism governance is understood to be a political paradigm that is characterized by the interrelations of different stakeholders and network relationships created among them, thereby involving aggregate social capital (Tineo & Tomazzoni, 2017).

In this sense, understanding the concept of networks in governance enables us to recognize the multitude of local stakeholders who are dependent on collective action. Cooperation between these stakeholders contributes to reduced uncertainty and increased efficiency in political actions and helps confront external pressures. Networks are based on criteria such as confidence and reciprocity, thus following the logic of cooperation to reach a common objective (Putnam, 2006; Coutinho, 2015; Rovere, 1999).

The network approach to politics is equal participation and distribution of benefits to all those involved. There is a consensus in the literature (Urano, Siqueira & Nóbrega, 2016; Velasco Gonzalez, 2010; Tretin, 2016; Coutinho, 2015; Fleury, 2002) that the best way to obtain success in a given public policy is through cooperation and by avoiding separatist approaches to politics and administration generally carried out by researchers in traditional business administration. Studies highlight that, in addition to this new analytical perspective, it is also a new form of social organization to confront political problems of (or lack of) social coordination and mediation.

In this sense social networks are characterized by relationships of independent stakeholders who each need to develop special skills and abilities. Given this assumption, all stakeholders would have the same objective and synergy and, by enhancing this group, would aim to strengthen the tourist region. Moreover, there needs to be a favorable environment for these networks to establish themselves and enable local development.

A stakeholder joins a network based on a need to share resources (not just financial resources) to obtain a common objective, i.e., each stakeholder has an individual objective, however, the success of that objective is linked to the construction of a larger objective that has shared value. Individual objectives and interests remain, but they are only reached by taking a global view of cooperation. However, studies show (Baum, 1994; Seki, 2013; and Qian et al., 2016) that there is a tendency to defend personal interests by placing themselves above others and, therefore, the sectors that have the most representative power end up gaining greater relevance, thus leaving behind the corporativist ideas that are defended in stakeholder network-based governance.

The antagonistic character of social networks is worth noting, whereby on the one side they are characterized by integration, dialogue, and approximation, and on the other side by competition, individualism, and intolerance, thereby benefiting big economic groups. Thus, the greater the level of integration within a network, the lower the tendency to diverge. A study by Qian et al. (2016) carried out in China demonstrated that there is a defensive, rather than cooperative attitude toward governance of tourist destinations. However, the authors also noted that it is not only relationships that determine the position of each stakeholder within the network, but rather the network as a whole, as well as aspects outside the network.

Thereby, Rovere (1999) has established a scheme to identify links within a network. Each level identified by the author supports the following: recognition of the others’ existence, knowledge, collaboration, cooperation, and association. These links are not only associated with the levels, but also with the actions and values involved, and every time a member shares something within the network they increase their link to the network.

Tretin (2016) proposes that governance networks be understood according to three increasing aspects: coordination, collaboration, and cooperation. Coordination refers to actions by the public sector in directing tourism development initiatives. Collaboration is the process of integrating diverse stakeholders in order to build rules and norms. Finally, cooperation is a behavioral result of these interorganizational relationships, which is imbued with freely sharing information and, therefore, the authority becomes individual, void of power pressures within the group.

Networks are clearly managed by an autonomously, voluntarily, and highly dynamic process, thus requiring all stakeholders/members to feel a sense of belonging and cooperation. Members, therefore, should be open to new interferences that benefit the location, and eliminate the unknown and knowledge barriers.

There is no consensus on the best matrix to carry out actions (top down or bottom up). The processes either start from where one can or wishes to find a solution to problems, i.e., stakeholders within the network cannot wait for others within the network to carry out the actions that were thought up together and which are in everyone’s interest. As a network, stakeholders can and should be involved and become involved in the participation process.

With this, managing political networks requires decision-making processes that are continuous and stable, however, there are some constraints to this process that have been found in previous studies: stakeholders behave according to their perceptions toward the other stakeholders and their expected behavior (Tretin, 2016; Velasco Gonzalez, 2013; Tineo & Tomazzoni, 2017; Fleury, 2002). Based on this, each stakeholder defines their own action strategy: a) the ability to move resources among stakeholders will depend both on the resources that each one controls and on their representation outside of the network-which is directly related to how each member understands their role within the network; b) consensus in decisions so that they can come to a common agreement-going to meetings with diverse powers who are represented in the network, where one sector can have greater control or power within the network; and c) the level of interest in solving questions that are actually relevant-related to how each member is involved in the governing network, through empowerment (Bramwell & Sharmam, 1999; Hall, 2011; Urano, Siqueira & Nóbrega, 2016; Coutinho, 2015).

With this in mind, we identified that organizational challenges are related to how the governing network is interwoven, with three main challenges shown in Figure 4. According to the literature, governance networks are composed of three types of stakeholders: private, public, and third sector, the condition being that there is a link that binds them together, which unites individual interests that can only be reached through collective action. Therefore, a condition of their existence is that members be connected by an interdependence relationship and cooperate for their actions to be successful. This is the heart of organizational governance structures in tourism. However, in the literature three types of organizational challenges to tourism governance were identified: involvement of each stakeholder within the network, defined by their empowerment and level of interest in a given issue; each stakeholder’s understanding of their role and the role of others within the network given that governance structures, particularly in the Brazilian context, were created as imposed administrative structures and lacked a discussion on their importance and on the main benefits that can be obtained from each relationship and correlation; and, finally, the consensus and representative power of each person within the network toward a common understanding, thereby avoiding superimposing powers and personal interests within the network.

Figure 4:
Organizational challenges to tourism governance

Thus, the main organizational challenges are directly related to the new context of interorganizational networks and, therefore, structures are required to foster their development into relations of cooperation among diverse stakeholders who are in tune with this process.

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Tourism is a complex network of relationships made up of diverse local stakeholders, therefore it imposes its own logic: that of cooperation. For tourism governance to develop in tourist destinations participation and cooperation is required among the diverse groups involved in this process. The way these stakeholders interact will influence how a given activity will develop in a location, especially given the new social and political contexts that call for more participatory and democratic processes.

Within this complex relationship, this paper discussed the primary challenges to building tourism governance in tourist destinations. The ProKnow-C methodology allowed us to identify papers that presented the main results found in Brazil and around the world on this topic, which we were able to reflect on.

Next, based on the selection of papers, categorization, and discussion, we identified two types of challenges. First, the institutional challenge, which is associated with the State, its characteristics, and pressures it has endured over the years which challenge governance, including: the role of regulator/hierarchy of the State, the personalization of governments, the dictatorial position, and the low importance placed on tourism. Second, we identified the organizational challenge, which refers to the relationships between stakeholders who participate in governance who, at their core, are based on interdependence, cooperation and a relationship that justifies their link, such as: an understanding of the role each person plays within the network that makes them act according to their representation, thereby acquiring greater representativity in this sense, and the level of involvement and cooperation between stakeholders in the empowerment process when seeking their personal objectives on a smaller scale, but reaching them through an understanding of the common good.

The challenges and discussions we identified in the literature review were similar in both the Brazilian and international papers. However, this does not mean that solutions should be the same in each tourist destination. An ideal model of governance should be discarded in favor of examining internal gaps in each process, depending on its context and associated relationships. The difficulties are conjunctural, not structural, which is why this paper discussed the conjunctural context that hinders the process of building tourism governance in tourist destinations.

It should be noted that this paper does not discuss all the challenges to tourism governance, given that the objective was to detect the primary challenges identified in the literature. However, there are specific contexts, keeping in mind the role of each link in the network, the processes that connect them, and the context in which they were created. Moreover, new reflections and questions may arise from the considerations presented here that go beyond discussing the weaknesses in the planning and management process of tourist destinations and seek to identify the dimensions of tourism governance that lead to the sustainability of destinations.

Another limitation of this study is the universe of texts mined to discuss these data. We only selected one database that contained high impact factor scientific articles; however, we know that new discussions and discoveries can be carried out if we were to expand this dataset to other sources.

REFERENCES

• Alió, M. & Jori, G. (2011). Les societat surbanesdavantla reforma ambiental: vision I propostes al voltante de la sostenibilitat. Barcelona: grups de Geógrafs per a L´Ecologia Social. Universitat de Barcelona.
• Almeida García, F., Balbuena Vázquez, A., & Cortés Macías, R. (2015). Resident’s attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
• Andrades, L. & Dinamache, F. (2017). Destination competitiveness and tourism development in Russia: Issues and Challenges. Tourism Management, 62, 360-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.05.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.05.008
• Araujo, M. et al. (2016). O turismo potiguar que chegou a perder 100 mil desembarques! Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo. 10(3), 594-614. https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v10i3.954
  » https://doi.org/10.7784/rbtur.v10i3.954
• Arretche, M. (1998). Tendencias no Estudo sobre avaliação. In Rico, E. Avaliação de políticas sociais: uma questão em debate. São Paulo: Cortez.
• Baum, T (1994). The development and implementation of national tourism policies. Tourism Management, 15 (3), 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(94)90103-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(94)90103-1
• Beaumont, N. & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism governance: a comparison of three network approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7-28.
• Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in loca tourism policy making. Annals of tourism Research, 26 (2), 392-415.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00105-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00105-4
• Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2000). A reforma gerencial do Estado de 1995. Revista de Administração Pública, 34(4), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.9.2000
  » https://doi.org/10.9.2000
• Caffyn, A. & Jobbins, G. (2003). Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the development and management of coast altourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia. Journal of sustainable Tourism, 11(2), 224-245.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667204
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667204
• Castells, M. (2000). A sociedade em Rede. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
• CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. (2016). Plataforma Sucupira. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/veiculoPublicacaoQualis/listaConsultaGeralPeriodicos.jsf
  » https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/public/consultas/coleta/veiculoPublicacaoQualis/listaConsultaGeralPeriodicos.jsf
• Coutinho, A. (2015). Políticas públicas, desenvolvimento local e participação social nas instâncias de governança associadas ao turismo no Rio Grande do Norte. Dissertação de Mestrado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Turismo. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brasil.
• Cruz, R. (2000). Políticas de turismo e território. São Paulo: Contexto.
• Dias, R. & Matos, F. (2012). Política pública: princípios, propósitos e processos. São Paulo: Atlas.
• Dodds, R. & Butler, R. (2010) Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass tourism destinations. Tourismos, 5 (1), 35-53.
• Ensslin, L. et al. (2010). ProKnow-C, Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist. Processo técnico com patente de registro pendente junto ao INPI. Brasil: Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial.
• Erkus-Ozturk, H. & Eraydin, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable tourism development: Collaborativa networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.002
• Estol, J. & Font, X. (2016). European tourism policy: Its Evolution and structure. Tourism Management, 52, 230-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.007
• Fleury, S. (2002). O desafio da gestão das redes de políticas. VII Congress Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública. Lisboa: Portugal.
• Garcia, F. (2014). A comparative studyof the Evolution of tourismpolicy in Spain and Portugal. Tourism Management, 11, 34-50.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.03.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.03.001
• Garcia, F. et al. (2015). Resident´s atitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
• Garcia, F. & Chahine, S. (2016). Evolución de la política turística y la intervención estatal. El caso de Marruecos. Cuadernos de Turismo, 38, 13-37. https://doi.org/10.6018/turismo.38.271331
  » https://doi.org/10.6018/turismo.38.271331
• Goeldner, C. & Brent, R. (2011). Tourism: principles, practices, philosophies. New Jersey: John Wiley Sons.
• Hall, C. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), 437-457.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.570346
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.570346
• Nóbrega, W. R. M. (2012). Turismo e Políticas Públicas na Amazônia Brasileira: instâncias de governança e desenvolvimento nos municípios de Santarém e Belterra, Oeste do Estado do Pará. Tese de Doutorado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Trópico Úmido. Universidade Federal do Pará.
• Nóbrega, W. R. M. & Figueiredo, S. J. L. (2014). Turismo e gestão pública: uma avaliação das instâncias de governança no Oeste do Estado do Pará. In: Pimentel, T. D.; Emmendoerfer, M. L. & Tomazzoni, E. L. (Org.). Gestão Pública do Turismo no Brasil: Teorias, Metodologias e Aplicações. Caxias do Sul: EDUCS.
• OCDE. (2013). Governança multinível para políticas de desenvolvimento regional mais eficazes. In: Relatório territorial da OCDE: Brasil. OECD Publishing. 161 - 231. https://10.1787/9789264189058-pt
  » https://10.1787/9789264189058-pt
• Qian, C. et al. (2016). Effective governance in tourism development - Ananalysis of local perception in the Huangshan mountain área. Tourism Management, 20, 112-123.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.08.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.08.003
• Putnam, R. (2006). Comunidade e democracia: a experiência da Itália moderna. Rio de Janeiro: FGV.
• Rovere, M. (1999). Redes em Salud: um Nuevo paradigm para el abordage de las organizaciones y la comunidade Rosario. Rosario: AMR.
• Schenkel, E. & Almeida, F. (2015). The 2001 economic crisis in Argentina and its repercussions on tourism policy. Tourism Today, 78-89.
• Seki, K. (2013). A study on the process of regional tourism management in collaborations between public and private sectors. Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 1, 339-349.
• Tang, X. (2017) The historical Evolution of China´s tourism development policies (1949-2013) - A quantitative research approach. Tourism Management, 58, 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.010
• Tineo, D & Tomazzoni, E. (2017). Santos e região convention & visitors bureau e a governance para o desenvolvimento turístico da costa da Mata Atlântica (SP). Caderno Virtual de Turismo, 17(3), 113-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.18472/cvt.17n3.2017.1195
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.18472/cvt.17n3.2017.1195
• Tretin, F. (2016). Governança turística em destinos brasileiros: comparação entre Armação dos Búzios/RJ, Paraty/RJ e Bonito/MS. Pasos, 14(3), 645-658.
• Urano, D.; Siqueira, F. & Nóbrega, W. (2016). Articulação em redes como um processo de construção de significado para o fortalecimento do turismo de base comunitária. Caderno Virtual de Turismo, 16 (2), 200-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.18472/cvt.16n2.2016.1173
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.18472/cvt.16n2.2016.1173
• Velasco González, M. (2010). Gobernanza del turismo: retos y estrategias de las redes de destinos turísticos. XV Congreso AECIT Dinámicas de Transformación Del Turismo En El Siglo XXI, 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.aecit.org/uploads/public/congresos/15/C15.pdf
  » http://www.aecit.org/uploads/public/congresos/15/C15.pdf
• Velasco Gonzalez, M. (2013). Gestión pública Del turismo. La gobernanza. In Fernández, J. & Sánchez, Y. (Eds.). Gestión estratégica sostenible de destinos turísticos. Sevilla: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.
• Velasco Gonzalez, M. & Tretin, F. (2014). Evolução da política de turismo no Brasil e España: enfoque nas redes de atores. V Congresso Internacional em Gobierno, Administración y Políticas Públicas. Madrid, España. GIGAPP - Grupo de Investigación em Gobierno, Administración y Políticas Públicas.
• Valente, F.; Dredge, D. & Lohmann, G. (2015). Leadership and governance in regional tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.03.005
• Wan, Y. & Bramwell, B. (2015). Political economy and the emergence of a hybrid mode of governance of tourism planning. Tourism Management. 50,316-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.03.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.03.010

• 5
  Peer-reviewed paper.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  25 Nov 2019
• Date of issue
  Sep-Dec 2019

History

• Received
  20 Oct 2018
• Accepted
  08 May 2019