TOURISM PLANNING AND POLICY
FINAL SELF- REFLECTION TOPICAL EXAMINATION QUESTION Assurance of learning
outcomes end-of-semester: 1 to 9
Skills targeted by this assignment:
organization, structuring, conceptualizing, operationalizing, critical thinking, analytical
thinking, integrating, synthesizing, evaluating, writing, storytelling, connecting and engaging with
existing knowledge, literature and theories, skills, personalizing, presenting, mapping
This end of semester final self-reflective topical question effectively relates to course learning
outcomes 1 to 9 in the syllabus.
Here’s is the outcomes:
1. Identify the various tourism-related problems that require planning and policy assessments for
more sustainable forms of development;
2. Describe the various types of tourism strategies and plans developed and implemented at
regional, national and destination levels so to discern good practice in addressing tourism
development problems;
3. Critically discuss the different approaches used in tourism planning and policy formulation and
implementation as evidenced in key planning and policy documents at regional, national and
destination levels;
4. Apply analytical tools to tourism policy, planning and development to create sustainable
solutions that consider benefits and trade-offs from the perspectives of diverse stakeholders;
5. Gauge the trustworthiness of different sources of information, data and evidence used by policy
makers and planners in the development of solutions to tourism planning and policy problems;
6. Integrate theoretical models, policies, plans and research into a sustainable development plan
and policy draft of interest to the various stakeholders in tourism development;
7. Effectively produce policy and planning approaches to address complex topical problems at
regional, national and destination levels.
8. Recognize the socio-cultural and ethical implications of adopted solutions in policy making and
planning different types of destinations;
9. Reflect on the different approaches taken to tourism planning and policy making at different
types of destinations with different levels of development.
This means that students are required to reflect on how the topics implied in the question, its
context and the answer to the question have impacted their learning and future learning
approach. To that end, students are requested to engage their answer to the question with their
own understanding and appreciation of the topic so it effectively addresses ALL THE
LEARNING OUTCOMES set for this course and particularly integrates critical analysis and
reflection. Simply put, you should ensure throughout your answer that you effectively connect
each and every learning outcome for the course. For example, ask yourself a question related to
CLO 1 such as: Do I identify the key elements of travel, tourism and events sectors in my
answer? If so, how can I connect them to answer the problematic at hand? Does part of my
answer consider CLO 2 with regard to describing a type of tourism strategy and plan that will
highlight good practice in addressing the tourism problem evoked in the statement? Etc.
Reflection is about careful thought. This examination question is about just that: reflection, a
way of debriefing your experience with this course and in view of the contents evoked by the
topical question, but running throughout all the LOs. The kind of reflection that is valuable to
leaders and managers involves:
1. (i) The conscious consideration of beliefs and actions; and
2. (ii) The analysis of those beliefs and actions for the purpose of learning, here in
the specific area related to the question on Tourism and Hospitality management
In other words, your reflection is about engaging your thought process about the topics
you deem important with regard to the question, their theoretical underpinnings and
everything associated with the topics, and with your learning experience as related to
the course learning outcomes you are expected to achieve in this course.
What you need to do when answering the question:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Relax
Untangle and sort through your own observations and experiences with the course
topic (before, during and after you went through the content of that topic)
(iii) Consider multiple interpretations (this is a thinking process that requires the
application of critical thinking, analysis, synthesis and metacognitive skills – thinking
about you think and learn)
Put yourself in a mindset of curiosity where you are eager for valuable insights
Create meaning specific to the topic content and that will become your learning
QUESTION:
Read the following extract from “Tourism to U.S. under Trump is down, costing $4.6b and
40,000 jobs” that appeared on NBCnews.com then answer the question that follows.
“Experts say that Trump's proposed travel bans, anti-immigration language, and heightened
security measures have had a negative impact on the U.S.'s attraction for foreign visitors. “It’s
not a reach to say the rhetoric and policies of this administration are affecting sentiment
around the world, creating antipathy toward the U.S. and affecting travel behavior,” Adam
Sacks, the president of Tourism Economics, told The New York Times.
The U.S. Travel Association plans to launch a “Visit U.S.” lobbying campaign to encourage
Washington to embrace the vital economic impact of foreign tourists, reports The Los Angeles
Times.
"While the U.S. government has been the source of a lot negative media attention this year, the
travel industry must continue to stand for open borders, inclusivity and the celebration of
diversity," said Leigh Barnes, the regional director for Intrepid Travel, in an email.
However, he said, "We are optimistic that this trend can and will turn around."
In view of the above extract and based on your understanding of the role of tourism
organizations in the TOURISM SYSTEM , critically discuss and reflect on how can those
factors that are negatively impacting the system be addressed in both planning and
policy at various organizational levels to the benefit of the country?
Consider in your recommendations an explanation of how you connect various
concepts, approaches, perspectives from your broader knowledge, skills and application
of skills related to this topic to come up with your answer.
(Minimum 800 words; maximum 1500 words [+- 250] excluding references) Submit
answer in WORD DOC.
Thank you
your
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 732–750, 2008
0160-7383/$ - see front matter ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2008.05.002
TOURISM POLICY MAKING:
The Policymakers’ Perspectives
Nancy Stevenson
University of Westminster, U.K.
David Airey
Graham Miller
University of Surrey, U.K.
Abstract: This research explores tourism policy making, from the perspectives of policy makers using grounded theory. It focuses on Leeds, a city in the North of England, which is characterized by its turbulent environment. The paper identifies themes around policy making,
including low status, lack of clarity, uncertainty, lack of consensus and congruence and
complexity. Its findings indicate policy making is essentially a social process, involving communication and negotiation between people in the context of wider change. It suggests a
social conceptualization, and further research to investigate the communications involved
in producing policy rather than the focus on the tangible outputs of the process such as a
plan or a physical development. Keywords: policy, people, communication, negotiation. ! 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
Public policy making is a social process involving communication
between many people in a variety of different organizations. These
interactions are negotiated and constrained by other decision makers,
reflecting wider societal features that shape the environment. In this
research, tourism policy making is investigated from the perspectives
of the people involved in the process to deepen understanding about
its relational and contextual aspects. This approach draws attention to
the importance of interactions and communications between people as
policy is enacted, and is designed to encompass complexity, multiple
perspectives, contradiction and change.
Institutional, stakeholder and network theory are considered briefly
and their contribution to understanding is discussed. Historical analysis identifies the specific environment of the research and the
contextual factors that have a key role in shaping policy. A research
strategy underpinned by grounded theory is used to analyze
Nancy Stevenson (University of Westminster, School of Architecture and the Built
Environment, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK. Email Æstevenn@wmin.ac.ukæ)
leads the Tourism Undergraduate Program. Her research interests include policy, planning
and development. David Airey is Professor of Tourism Management and Pro-Vice-Chancellor,
University of Surrey, UK. Graham Miller is a Senior Lecturer in Management, University of
Surrey, UK.
732
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
733
interviews. Key themes and characteristics are identified which are
considered in the light of wider literature. Policy making is discussed
in the context of rapid change, marginality, multiple connections,
communication, intangibility, and contradiction. The research suggests further investigation into individuals’ stories about how they
interact to develop and deliver policy may deepen understanding of
the process.
This paper reflects concerns that approaches to tourism planning
overemphasize the process of making a plan. Here the term policy is
used to reflect a broader understanding of the political, societal and
human context of public sector-led decision making. A policy conceptualization includes those interactions and processes associated with
making policies, and the continual negotiations required to enact
them. It focuses attention on the environment, the interaction between
different initiatives and the various actors in the process.
A number of researchers including Farrell and Twining-Ward
(2004); Kerr, Barron and Wood (2001); Pforr (2005) and Russell
and Faulkner (1999) claim that dominant approaches to understanding public policy are developed from the rational paradigm. They
claim these approaches are reductionist, producing thin description
that ignores the dynamics within the environment and have not provided the analytical tools to investigate context. Bramwell (2006);
Dredge (2006); Dredge and Jenkins (2003); Elliott (1997); Tyler and
Dinan (2001a,b) and Thomas and Thomas (1998) use wider theory
to focus attention on the environment, the interaction between different initiatives, the networks and communications between the people
involved in the process and the political nature of policy making.
These approaches encompass debates about the social context within
which policies are made and examine relationships between contextual
aspects rather than the detailed techniques and methods involved in
the preparation of a plan.
Institutional approaches have been developed from the perception
that public policy is made within political and public institutions. Institutional analysis has been used by researchers including Dredge and
Jenkins (2003); Elliott (1997) and Tyler and Dinan (2001a,b) and
draws attention to formal rules and traditions, uncovering different
conventions and procedures. It highlights the complex characteristics
of policy making, drawing attention to the environment, which is characterized by organizational fragmentation, with policies being framed
simultaneously within different areas. Treuren and Lane (2003) claim
the contribution of the institutional and organizational literature in
theory development has been its role in questioning rationality, and
deterministic and normative thinking such as in the process models
(e.g. Veal 2002) where policies are developed and then implemented.
However institutional analysis has been criticized for underplaying the
political and social processes (John 1998).
Stakeholder and network approaches reflect concerns that some research is too rational and not applicable to the real world. Stakeholder approaches highlight the ‘‘plurality of organizational interest
groups and the political nature of organizational goal setting and
734
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
policy implementation’’ (Treuren and Lane 2003:4). Network approaches focus on ‘‘policy communities’’ made up of people who
interact within networks. They analyze from the perspective of the
people who are involved in the process and recognize that ‘‘policy
emerges as a result of informal patterns of association’’ considering
the dynamics of ‘‘complex relationships’’ by examining them ‘‘as they
shift and change’’ (John 1998:91). Network theory helps to ‘‘explain
the complexity of the policy arena and the multi-dimensional nature
of it’’ (Tyler and Dinan 2001b:243). However it is criticized by John
(1998) who contends that networks need to be linked to other factors
such as interests, ideas and institutions which determine how networks function. Bramwell (2006), Dredge (2006) and Bramwell and
Meyer (2007) have developed approaches that consider networks in
their social contexts. Bramwell (2006), for example, aims to develop
understanding from the perspectives of people, making links between
their views, actions and their social context. Dredge (2006) claims
there has been increased interest in the network approach in the past
decade arising from the increasing complexity of the environment
and the proliferation of cross sector partnerships to develop and deliver policies.
There is a growing body of research that supports the idea of the
use of multiple approaches to understand policy making. Dredge
and Jenkins (2003) draw upon ideas from exchange and resource
dependency theory, social and economic theory and institutional
theory to explore relations between different layers of government.
Treuren and Lane (2003) combine theories about organizations,
institutional structures, stakeholders, ideology, economics and sustainability to develop a framework for analysis. Tyler and Dinan
(2001a,b) draw from network theory, institutional theory, political
theory and chaos theory highlighting the complexity of the tourism
policy arena. John (1998) and Pforr (2005) argue that single approaches fail to explain change, offer partial accounts of political action and lack analytical capability. They claim that when approaches
are combined they can begin to account for complexity, dynamism
and change. Most recently Bramwell and Meyer (2007) suggest a
relational approach to policy making which takes account of power
and context and develops a holistic approach.
DEVELOPING AN APPROACH TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE VIEWS
OF POLICY MAKERS
Jafari (1987) and Kerr et al (2001) recommend case specific studies
to develop thick description and improve understanding in a specific
context rather than attempting to develop universal models. Case studies can include investigation into the irrational and less tangible aspects of policy making. They can reflect upon the wider political
context within which decisions are made and draw attention to the
power inequalities that are embedded in society. Dredge (2006);
Dredge and Jenkins (2003); Hope and Klemm (2001); Kerr et al
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
735
(2001); Ladkin and Bertramini (2002); Pforr (2005); Stevenson and
Lovatt (2001); Thomas and Thomas (1998) and Treuren and Lane
(2003) highlight the extent to which specific contexts and relationships generate a variety of different approaches to policy making. Agarwal (1999); Bramwell (2006); Bramwell and Meyer (2007) and Kerr
et al (2001) recognize the importance of people in process and their
research supports a social conceptualization.
The Setting
A case study approach fits well with a study such as this which is developed from the views of policy makers. The City of Leeds was selected as
an appropriate case study for this research on the basis that it had a history of tourism policy making and service provision (since 1977), a written strategy, a budget and dedicated staff and decision makers who
were willing to participate in further research. Leeds is located in the
North of England, is the capital of Yorkshire and the Humber Region
and is the second largest Metropolitan District in England. As traditional industries declined, in the 1970s, the Local Authority (LA),
sought to diversify the city’s employment base including the development and promotion of its image as a destination. The area was identified by Buckley and Witt (1989) as a city in a ‘‘difficult area’’ to
develop tourism.
Leeds is the largest centre of economic activity in the region, and has
a diverse and rapidly growing economy. Its tourism industry has developed rapidly in the past fifteen years, supported by the development of
hotels, attractions and leisure facilities. According to research in 2006
by the Yorkshire Tourist Board ‘‘the overall value of tourism in Leeds
was an estimated £639 million (m), supporting in excess of 13,000 fulltime jobs (LCC 2007). The difficulties in estimating day visitors are
demonstrated in the fluctuations in estimates of such visits, which
are shown at 10.26 m in 2006 down from 18.4 m in 2003, with a corresponding decrease in revenue from £546 m to £308 m. The staying visitor market is estimated to have generated £188.6 m in 2003, rising to
£288 m in 2006 (LCC 2003 & 2007).
There is a hierarchy of policies that guide the strategic development of Leeds. At the top of the hierarchy is the ‘Vision for Leeds’,
(1999-2009 and 2004–2020), which sets out the strategic direction of
the LA. Beneath lie seven ‘daughter’ strategies, which are intended
to deliver different aspects of the ‘Vision’ (the Cultural Strategy is
the relevant strategy for tourism). Below each of the daughter strategies are a third tier of ‘grand-daughter’ strategies including the
Tourism Strategy (hereafter called the Strategy). Tourism objectives
are also delivered through a wide range of policies and plans outside the visioning process. The LA’s support and engagement in
tourism has been inconsistent over the past 29 years, with services
being developed under different mainstream policy and service
areas. Stevenson (2005) identifies five phases characterized by activity at the beginning, followed by setback and relative inactivity at the
736
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
end of each phase. There is a continued lack of clarity about the
role and remit of tourism services and it is difficult to separate them
from other LA activities.
The Context—Governance and Modernization
The changing governance of Britain, in relation to local authorities
and in the changing relations between the public and private sector
and between the state at different levels, provides the context for
the study. Research into governance considers the plethora of agencies and changing power arrangements associated with developing
and implementing public policies (Midwinter 2001; Richards and
Smith 2002; Stoker 2004; Stoker and Wilson 2004). In this case the
key change is that from local government’s involvement in the direct
provision of services to the more complex arrangements associated
with local governance that began in 1979 when the ‘New Right’
Thatcher government was elected. It was influenced by ‘neo-liberalism’ an ideological perspective drawing from ideas developed by
Adam Smith and the classical economists, which was a laissez fair liberalism with an advocacy of market systems. The New Right were concerned about the role and effectiveness of the state within a rapidly
changing and complex environment and sought to improve efficiency
and effectiveness (Hambleton, Essex and Mills 1995; Stoker and Wilson 2004).
In Britain by the 1990’s there was broad consensus that public services reform was necessary and that government should be less involved
with directly providing services and more involved in strategic leadership (Giddens 1998:6). The modernization agenda is the latest iteration of public service reform. It includes policies to engender more
collaboration and partnership working, curbs on local government
spending, improved integration of policies, developing citizenship under the ‘democratic renewal’ agenda and changes to the management
and leadership of LAs (Midwinter 2001). Changes associated with governance and modernization mean that LA policy is developed in a context that is turbulent and in the process of rapid and fundamental
change. The modernization agenda has been characterized by contradictory tensions between its different aspects. For example modernization has led to increased regulation and control over LAs by national
government and has reduced their discretion to deliver local services.
However the modernization agenda also seeks to develop local democracy, which implies that the LAs should have more power to develop
and deliver policies (Leach 2004; Richards and Smith 2002). The modernization agenda is associated with the rising importance of the regions in setting the context for LA activity. Regional Development
Agencies (RDAs) are concerned with economic development and
delivery and are particularly important to the case study as the strategic
leadership for tourism was devolved to them in 2003 (DCMS, 2002).
This has led to turbulence and uncertainty as RDA structures and policies emerge and develop.
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
737
With the exception of Burns (2003) and Thomas and Thomas
(1998) there has been little discussion about ideology or the impacts
of governance and modernization in the tourism literature. The wider
literature on policy, ideology and politics in Britain (including Giddens
1998; Hambleton et al. 1995; Hill 1997; John 1998; Midwinter 2000;
Richards and Smith 2002; Stoker and Wilson 2004) reveals a lack of
ideological thought or debate relating to tourism policy. In Britain it
is difficult to connect tourism policies with rightist or leftist ideology
because ideological considerations do not clearly underpin the actions
of government. However the changes arising from governance, modernization and third way ideology are important to this research as they
affect the context in which decisions are made.
Policy at the National and Local Levels
Historical analysis of national approaches to tourism (drawing from
Jeffreys 2001 and Tyler and Dinan 2001a,b) identifies the main characteristics as the predominance of economic approaches, continued low
status, organizational change and the growth of partnerships with the
private sector. It has remained a ‘‘sub’’ departmental area during the
past 30 years and has been characterized by the reliance on sub state
agencies and a scant legislative framework. There have been frequent
changes in lead department and organizational fragmentation with
responsibility split between nine departments in 2001 (Tyler and Dinan 2001a). More recently the environment has become more complex and turbulent with a variety of partnership arrangements to
develop and deliver policies creating increasingly varied power
relationships.
At the local level, many LAs are involved in a broad range of tourism
activities including promotion, the provision of visitor information,
policy making, visitor and attraction management and development,
creation of destination based fora, and private/public partnerships.
Indirect activities include infrastructure and service provision that impacts upon visitors and their overall experience (Richards 1991; Stevenson and Lovatt 2001). Governance and modernization have changed
the context of LA service provision but have not had a major direct impact on their engagement in tourism service provision which continues
to be discretionary, minimally funded and delivered on the margins of
larger service areas. Research by Buckley and Witt (1985, 1989), Hope
and Klemm (2001), Richards (1991), Stevenson and Lovatt (2001), and
Thomas and Thomas (1998) identify this marginality and the extent to
which the engagement in tourism activity and service provision are subject to local interpretation. In the absence of a strong lead from national government, LAs have an unusual degree of freedom to
define and develop policy.
English LAs take a wide variety of approaches to tourism, their objectives are articulated through a range of plans and strategies with different foci and the environment is characterized by its messiness and
complexity. LAs are involved in the preparation of tourism strategies,
738
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
and a range of other strategies and plans which cover some of its aspects such as cultural strategies and economic development strategies.
They are increasingly working in partnerships, to carry out activities,
which has led to ‘‘a huge range of non predictable, evolving relationships’’ (Tyler and Dinan 2001a:211) and increased the importance of
bargaining and negotiation between people in a variety of organizations in the public and private sectors. The complexity and variety of
approaches highlights the difficulty in adopting a research approach
that relies on a single or simple conceptualization or that makes a-priori assumptions.
Study Methods
The conceptualization of policy as a social activity, emerging from
human action and interaction, has implications for the design of research strategy. In this case grounded theory offered clear advantages
in enabling the researcher to build theory from the ‘bottom-up’ from
the actions, words and behavior of the people under study. As Glaser
(1992:16) noted grounded theory recognizes the importance of people
in ‘‘shaping the worlds they live in through the process of symbolic
interaction’’ and the interrelationship between peoples’ perceptions
and action. It emphasizes the need to, ‘‘get out in the field’’; study phenomena using the perspectives or voice of those studied; collect and
analyze data simultaneously and refine theory using a wider range of
data including policy documents and secondary material (Glaser and
Strauss 1968; Goulding 2002). Further, the procedures for the analysis
of interview data that are associated with grounded theory were well
suited to capture the nature of the social processes involved here. Following the work of Glaser (1992) and Goulding (2002) a procedure of
initial ‘open coding’ was used to fragment the interview data identifying concepts and using constant comparison to scrutinize for meaning.
The initial codes were labeled ‘‘to generate concepts’’ which were
‘‘clustered into descriptive categories’’ (Goulding 2002:74). The identified concepts were then analyzed in more depth and grouped under
more abstract ‘‘higher order’’ concepts (Strauss & Corbin 1998:95). At
this stage incidents were compared with incidents recalled from experience, from memos written during the data collection and analysis
process and from the literature. Axial coding which Goulding
(2002:169) describes as ‘‘a more sophisticated method of coding data
which seeks to identify incidents which have a relationship to each
other’’ was used to begin the process of ‘‘reassembling the data that
were fractured during open coding’’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998:1234). At this stage the desciptive codes were subsumed into the higher order category which united ‘‘the theoretical concepts to offer an explanation or theory of the phenomenon’’ (Goulding 2002:169).
The research area here is characterized by a complex web of relationships and a range of tangible and intangible factors. Fonseca (2002);
Medd (2001); Mitleton Kelly and Subhan (2002); Stacey (2003); and
Shaw (2002) argue that complex social phenomena are affected by a
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
739
range of factors, many of which are not tangible. They use qualitative
approaches to try to describe and interpret these phenomena. They focus attention on people, highlighting the importance of communication, conversations and story telling as a way of developing
knowledge about change in the social sphere. The blending of
grounded theory with ideas from these researchers provided a research
strategy that focused on the societal context, communications and human behaviors that shape the policy process. The strategy enabled consideration of the multiplicity of voices of the interviewees and added
depth, meaning, and reflexivity. It was developed in the knowledge
that any theory arising from this study would be context specific,
although it may have resonance in a wider setting.
Collecting the Data
The research strategy involved the adoption of a series of semi-structured interviews around a series of broad topics. ‘Snowball’ sampling
(Patton 2002) was adopted as a way of identifying people with a key
role in developing and delivering tourism policy. Initially the Tourism
Manager (hereafter called the Manager) was interviewed and identified people that she worked closely with. These people were then interviewed and also asked to identify key people. This meant the list of
interviewees was based upon the data collected in the field. The interviewees included policy makers at the local level including three councilor’s, (the Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader and the
councilor with responsibility for tourism), the director of the local strategic partnership, managers of Corporate Services, Policy and Regeneration, the Policy and Projects team, and the planning officer with a
responsibility for tourism. At the regional level the Director of the
Yorkshire Tourist Board (YTB) and two tourism managers in Yorkshire
Forward were interviewed. Interviews were carried out twice, in 2004
and 2005. Changes in the leadership of the Council and in staffing over
the study period meant that several of the key policy makers changed.
Snowball sampling in the second year enabled the researcher to identify the new grouping of key people. A total of twelve people, (six women and six men) were interviewed over the two years and, ten
interviews were undertaken each year. These interviews were tape-recorded to enable the researcher to establish rapport, to probe and clarify issues as they emerged and to revisit this information during the
research process.
The interviewees were asked to identify the issues and interactions
influencing the policy process in their experience. Their responses
usually led to reflections about key people, the place of tourism within
the LA, the political will to engage in tourism, the networks and joint
arrangements to deliver policies but where they did not cover all of
these areas the interviewer made a broad inquiry into that aspect. At
the end of each interview the interviewee was asked if there were any
other important issues that had not been discussed, enabling them
to broaden out the frame of reference and introduce new themes.
740
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
The second phase of interviews aimed to clarify and elaborate ideas
discussed at the first meeting and to identify new issues and themes
that had emerged during the year. It was loosely structured around
the researcher’s conceptualization of themes identified in the first
stage interviews. Interviewees were invited to discuss and comment
on the themes and other interpretations arising from these interviews.
This enabled reflection between the researcher and interviewee and
provided opportunities to revise understandings so that interpretation
of data was a two way process. In this way the researcher moved between inductive open-ended encounters with interviewees to ascertain
the dimensions of the study and more deductive attempts to theme
ideas.
Analyzing the Data
The interviews were transcribed to re-engage with their content,
which enabled thoughts and concepts to develop. Segments of text
were color coded and line-by-line analysis was used to identify key
words or phrases to develop coding categories. Manual analysis enabled the researcher to repeatedly revisit and immerse herself in the
data, recoding and capturing patterns or themes as they emerged.
Memos were written to map ideas, refine concepts, identify relationships in the data and to note ideas outside of the data. The transcripts,
tapes and the memos were reviewed regularly to enable reflection
upon incidents occurring across the data. Open coding was used to
break down data into distinct units of meaning and these units were
then labeled to generate concepts. Patterns, recurring events and
shared experiences were noted and axial coding was then used to cluster concepts that were relevant. Constant comparative analysis enabled
the researcher to develop the codes further as the process continued,
which directed further data collection (Glaser 1978; Goulding 2002;
Strauss and Corbin 1998).
The findings were written up as two narratives, reflecting the phases
of research and bringing together themes and characteristics using the
experience, definitions and understanding of those involved in the
process. The narrative approach was used to make connections and
create meaning to develop a story. It fitted with the social conceptualization, explicitly involving the researcher as a narrator in the story and
enabling the study of the dynamic of the process in a way that acknowledged its complexity and its environment (Flyvbjerg 1998; Mitleton,
Kelly and Subhan 2002). The narrative approach enabled the researcher to discuss her findings and ideas within the context of multiple
interpretations of data (Stacey 2003).
After the narratives were written a formal literature review took
place, drawing on existing ideas and refining the emerging theory
further. The decision to undertake a literature review at this late
stage reflects the need to disconnect from the literature in order
to develop a perspective reflecting the interviewees’ experiences
(Glaser 1998). It was necessary for the themes and characteristics
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
741
to have some substance before comparing with other studies and
established notions and theory about policy development. The literature review was used to conceptually connect the emerging theory
from the interviewees’ to existing theory in the field. The narratives
were then refined on the basis of the literature and the findings
written up.
Findings
The next section is developed from the narratives and identifies two
core characteristics and six themes. These are evaluated in the context
of the literature identified earlier in this paper and historical analysis
in England and in Leeds. The core characteristics arising in the interviews are constant change, and communication. The turbulence of the
environment in Leeds is illustrated by the interviewees, who identify
changes in the political leadership and in key personnel between
2004 and 2005. There are also changes in the approach to policy development and delivery including the introduction of a new organization
to market the city and developments at the regional level. As a result of
this rapid change, there is a divergence between the stated mechanisms
for delivering policies and those experienced by the interviewees.
There is also a divergence between the sustainability and regeneration
objectives stated in the strategy and the experience of the interviewees who claim the service is focused on front line services and
marketing.
The interviewees emphasize the importance of interactions and
negotiations between decision makers in different sectors in the development and delivery of policy, highlighting different associations of
people involved. They identify the formal and informal mechanisms
for communicating the strategy, indicating that the strength and position of the champion(s) and their ability to influence other decision
makers has a major effect on the development and implementation
of policies. Six themes emerged across the data which are bound together, overlap and are characterized by their indistinct or ‘fuzzy’
boundaries.
Low Status. The provision of tourism policies and services is a discretionary activity for the LA which contributes to its low status and
minimal budget. The implications of low status include minimal
local research, a lack of strategic awareness, disconnection from
wider LA policies, difficulty for the Manager to influence key people and inactivity in the context of rapid change. In Leeds, tourism
policy is driven by officers, rather than elected representatives, is of
marginal political interest and falls outside mainstream political
debate.
Low status is particularly relevant to an understanding of tourism
policy making in England where changes in the wider environment
have disproportionately impacted upon discretionary services (Thomas
and Thomas 1998). The modernization agenda has increased pressure
to improve the delivery of statutory services. This has refocused
742
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
politicians’ attention away from discretionary services particularly those
that are largely outside the local democratic process (tourists do not
live in the area, do not vote and often do not directly contribute to
the cost of LA services). The lack of reference to tourism in the wider
literature on governance, modernization and political ideology in the
U.K. highlights its marginality and low status as an area of government
activity. This marginality is a characteristic of a wide range of LAs in the
U.K. and is evident in the research by Richards (1991); Stevenson and
Lovatt (2001) and Stevenson (2002).
Lack of Clarity. There is a lack of clarity in Leeds about the role of the
LA in developing and delivering tourism policy and about how it
should fit with other priorities. This is strongly linked with its low status
and the under representation of tourism interests in the most influential decision making groups. For example the Manager is not involved
in the group overseeing the implementation of the Cultural Strategy,
which means key decision makers are not briefed on implementation
and the contribution of tourism to the economy. The lack of clarity
about the nature, place and role of tourism policy in England is evident
from surveys (Richards 1991; Stevenson and Lovatt 2001). It is illustrated at a theoretical level by the diversity of approaches and theories
to conceptualize policy making including Bramwell and Sharman
(1999); Bramwell (2006); Burns (2003); Dredge and Jenkins (2003);
Elliott (1997); Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004); Pforr (2005); and
Treuren and Lane (2002).
Uncertainty. In Leeds there is uncertainty in the context of rapid
change in the local and regional environment. The arrangements for
delivering services continue to change as a consequence of the new
leadership, organizational developments and regional changes. The
interviewees are uncertain about what will happen in the next few
months and how the LA will engage in tourism policy and service delivery in the future. They are not sure whether this service will be contracted out and whether they as individuals will continue to be
involved. In this context they can only deliver services on a short term,
reactive basis and strategic or long term thinking is in abeyance until
decisions are made at a higher level.
Lack of Consensus. The interviews in Leeds illustrate the lack of consensus around the development and delivery of policy, drawing attention to shifts in power and the implications of lack of power in the
process. For example, LA hostility to the regional proposals for sub regional delivery structures led to a reorientation of regional policy between the interviews in 2004 and 2005, with some decision-making
powers being shifted to the LA. While a mutually acceptable approach
has been agreed, the lack of consensus during the process has led to
mistrust and relatively infrequent communication between regional
and local players. Also within Leeds the development of a city-wide
marketing organization has been characterized by a lack of consensus
about detailed implementation, leading to poor communication and
indecision. In both these cases there are winners and losers in negotiations. At a wider level these findings are supported by research by
Bramwell and Sharman (1999); Elliott (1997); Ladkin and Bertramini
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
743
(2002); Treuren and Lane (2003); Thomas and Thomas (1998); and
Tyler and Dinan (2001b) who illustrate the extent that policy is
enacted within a contested arena with different groups of people vying
for position.
Lack of Congruence. There is a lack of congruence between the various
initiatives and policies that impact upon tourism. There are four layers
of regional organization that deliver policy including the Northern
Way (a grouping of three Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)),
the region (the RDA and YTB), the West Yorkshire sub region and
the Leeds City Region. These organizations have different boundaries,
in some respects appear to duplicate and contradict one another and
there is uncertainty arising from the conflicting agendas of the various
programmers. Policy makers in Leeds recognize the tensions between
the initiatives and the contradictions arising as they attempt to comply
and engage with different programmers. These tensions lead to a situation where local politicians have a key role in choosing how enthusiastically they will engage in different initiatives. For example, in Leeds,
there is evidence of more enthusiasm at the local level for the City Region and less for sub regional delivery structures. At the local level
there is also a lack of congruence between the organizational structure
and the policy hierarchy for tourism. Recent organizational changes
have moved tourism from Leisure Services (with a direct role in delivering the Cultural Strategy) to Development Services (with a direct
role in delivering regeneration plans and strategies). This has disconnected the service from the formal mechanisms for delivery and
implementation.
Complexity. The complexity of tourism policy making arises partly
from the five themes outlined above but they do not fully encompass
the attributes that make it complex. It is complex because it operates
across a wide range of traditional service areas and serves people
who do not participate in the local democratic process. It has fuzzy
boundaries, spanning diverse areas and requiring multiple connections to be made across organizations and plans. Complexity is intensified in the current period of change at the local and regional level and
this exacerbates the lack of clarity and uncertainty about the service.
There are so many new initiatives affecting tourism in Leeds that it is
difficult to understand their implications and to maintain the stability
required to implement and evaluate policies.
Leeds is characterized by complexity at all levels. At the local level
this is illustrated by the variety of departments and organizations
that provide services and make policies with a tourism element,
the constant change in roles and responsibilities and the uncertainty
about where it fits. This is exacerbated by the multitude of changing
roles and relationships between private and public sector organizations in the local strategic partnership and the development of a separate organization to market the City in 2005. At the regional level
there is complexity arising from the changes in delivery structures,
policies and plans. This has been exacerbated by rapid changes in
the staffing altering the network of relationships between decision
makers.
744
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
Implications of Findings
The implications of the findings of this study are discussed below under six headings which draw together the characteristics and themes
arising in the interview data.
Tourism Policy Takes Place in a Rapidly Changing and Dynamic Environment. The combination of modernization, governance and third way
ideology, means that policy is made and enacted in a context that is
turbulent, competitive and dynamic. At the local level this dynamism
is illustrated by reorganization, changes in personnel and new initiatives. There is a connection between developments in the regional
and national environment and the local environment but these developments are sometimes contradictory and connections are complex
and difficult to envisage. Policy research should therefore be developed within a theoretical framework that recognizes and investigates
its characteristics and contradictions. Further research should consider
the process of change and its implications over time to illustrate the dynamic power shifts in the networks of people who influence and enact
local policies.
Tourism Policy is Essentially about Communication. The wider literature
on complexity (Fonseca 2002; Shaw 2002; Stacey 2003) stresses the extent to which policy making is a ‘‘soft’’ intuitive human process rather
than a rational scientific process. This is supported by Bramwell and
Meyer (2007) and the interviewees who identify the key role of communication and negotiation between people in the process. The implication of this continuous negotiation is that policy is constantly changing,
is open to varied interpretation and cannot be ‘‘fixed’’ or clearly
defined.
In Leeds people negotiate the shape and place of tourism policy and
their interactions are very relevant to its ongoing practice and development, whereas its tangible elements are not important. When the interviewees discuss tourism they do not refer to the published strategy but
talk about the specific arrangements and initiatives in the recent past,
the present and near future. They refer to the implicit links with the
higher objectives and the approaches adopted by the people involved
in the process. The lack of importance of the Strategy to policy makers
raises questions about the relevance of research approaches that focus
on producing formal strategy. It implies further research should be
undertaken to understand the networks, communications and interactions surrounding policy and to develop theory that takes account of
the experiences and views of those involved in the process.
Tourism Takes Place on the Margins of LA Policy Making. In England
tourism lies on the margins of LA policy making (Stevenson and Lovatt
2001), and is not explicitly addressed in the wider literature or debates
(such as Giddens 1998; Stoker and Wilson 2004). Its marginality arises
from its discretionary nature, a lack of clarity about what it is and how it
fits with other more established areas, and a lack of interest from the
local electorate and local politicians. The research indicates that the
Manager does not have a powerful voice in partnerships and is not sufficiently senior in the organizational hierarchy to influence wider deci-
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
745
sions. The most important characteristics affecting policy making are
outside her control and she is relatively powerless in the process.
The low status of tourism in relation to other service areas suggests further investigation using wider literature on power and exploring the
implications of lack of power.
Tourism is Intricately Connected and cannot be Separated from Other Policy
Areas. This study set out to focus on tourism policy but the findings in
Leeds, suggest it does not have clear boundaries and is developed and
delivered by a number of organizations in partnership. There is a lack
of clarity about where it fits and how it feeds into the higher level
Vision. Its marginality and lack of congruence means that in practice
it does not clearly link into any of the LA’s mainstream activities.
These findings are supported by research by Richards (1991), Stevenson and Lovatt (2001) and Thomas and Thomas (1998) indicating the
diversity of approaches to policy making taken by LAs and their varied
partners.
The enactment of tourism policy is not confined within a specific service or organizational area and it is the result of a large number of different decisions made at local, regional and national level. Many of
these are not directed specifically at tourism but have significant impacts on policy development and delivery e.g. the modernization agenda and the development of cultural strategies in the early 2000s. In
Leeds tourism is intricately connected and intertwined with other areas
which suggests that it makes little sense for it to be conceptualized as a
separate activity. Studies need to be developed which take account of
its varied, overlapping and sometimes indistinct boundaries and understand how those arrangements work rather than taking it out of its context and creating boundaries with other areas.
Contradictory Tensions are Inherent in the Environment and in the Process
itself. The research highlights tensions and contradictions, showing that
the most easily identifiable parts of policy making are not necessarily
the most important. For example in Leeds, formal planning involving
the production of the strategy had a negligible role in the development
of the tourism sector which grew in response to changes in the economy as a whole. The strategy did not exist until 2002 and by 2005
was forgotten by the interviewees who discuss delivery in terms of the
higher level Vision. One interpretation might be that tourism developed successfully without policy and does not need to be managed.
However historical analysis (Stevenson 2005) and the interviews with
policy makers indicate considerable informal activity in the period
where no formal strategy existed. The interviewees indicate that the
tangible policies within formally adopted plans are far less important
in enacting change than those intangible and unwritten policies and
practices that evolve during the interactions and negotiations between
decision makers.
Another visible change occurs when the political leadership in
Leeds changes for the first time in 24 years in 2004. The election of
a new leadership would appear to imply change, however in practice,
the strategic vision, and tourism policy objectives have remained the
same because the partnership organization secured cross party
746
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
agreement to the Vision. Despite the apparent alternatives provided
through party-based representative democracy a major visible change
has minimal implications on the development and enactment of
policy.
The Leeds study also shows the continuing tensions that arise in
negotiations between people and between the different policies and
initiatives at the local, regional and national level. The tensions between these multiple factors are dynamic, complex and unpredictable
and require research to be developed in a way that recognizes and
takes account of them.
The Tangible Components of Policy are not Necessarily the Most Important.
In Leeds the Strategy provides a clear and tangible manifestation of
policy but by 2005 it was largely forgotten. The interviewees emphasized the importance of the ambiguous and less tangible aspects or
what Darwin (2001) calls ‘backstage activity’ which includes the interactions, and the power and politics of policy making. In the view of
the interviewees the most important developments and the negotiations are those that are emerging and are not formalized within documents or plans. These include the negotiations around the
development of an organization to market Leeds, the decision to
freeze the Manager’s post and the lack of consensus and negotiation
around the regional proposals. These are the most important enactments of policy but very little is written about them and they are relatively intangible outside of the network.
CONCLUSION
This research contributes to current theoretical debates by presenting a challenge to the way in which policy making is conceptualized
with the aim of improving understanding of policy in its complex, turbulent and social environment. It seeks to understand policy development from the perspectives of policy makers and to make links
between their views and actions in a way that takes account of their social context. By placing people at the center of the investigation it
emphasizes the communications and social interactions that are fundamental to the process. It contributes to methodological debates by
developing an approach that draws from grounded theory, encompassing the intricacies and multiple perspectives associated with human
activity within a social world. It identifies characteristics and themes
and then discusses these in the frame of wider contextual
considerations.
In Leeds, tourism policy spans a range of areas and organizations,
lacks clarity and status and occurs in a dynamic environment. As a result of its complexity is it is not easy to unpick and unpack the most
important components and relationships. It is difficult to understand
who is really making decisions and this research suggests the answers
might lie in the stories about how individuals interact and work together. This suggests that stories about informal relationships, interests
and rivalries might give much better insights into how people exert
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
747
power and have more capacity to explain what happens in practice
than the study of the more tangible processes and techniques involved
in preparing a plan.
This research has been developed from the belief that policy making
is a social process, involving interaction, negotiation and collaboration
between people. It recognizes the importance of people and investigates the factors and circumstances affecting policy in Leeds from their
perspectives. It is concerned with documenting and analyzing the ‘realities’ of policy making from the perspectives of the policy maker and
developing understanding from the ‘bottom-up’. It shows that the tangible outputs, such as written policies, say little about the realities of
the process from the perspectives of the people involved. In Leeds
the key issue for the Manager is how to negotiate with important decision makers to ensure that tourism issues are considered on the mainstream agenda.
The research is developed from the perspective that understanding
of complex policy issues can be improved by building rich context
specific studies that have a resonance with one another. While its direct
findings are context specific, they provide another layer to the understanding of the complex social phenomena associated with policy
making. If the findings have a wider resonance then it could be to
point to the fact that studies that focus on the techniques and process
of preparing a plan provide a limited or partial understanding. In
Leeds the issue is not how to develop a tangible plan or document,
but how to get tourism onto the local agenda. This suggests that
research needs to be directed at developing a more detailed and coherent understanding of the communications between policy makers
focusing on some of the problems they encounter and the power
inequalities that occur in a contested policy arena. Research is required
to provide ideas and concepts to help tourism policy makers be more
influential in a dynamic environment.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, S.
1999 Restructuring and local economic development: implications for
seaside resort regeneration in Southwest Britain. Tourism Management
20:511–552.
Bramwell, B., and A. Sharman
1999 Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking. Annals of Tourism
Research 26:392–415.
Bramwell, B.
2006 Actors, Power and Discourses of Growth Limits. Annals of Tourism
Research 33:957–978.
Bramwell, B., and D. Meyer
2007 Power and Tourism Policy Relations in Transition. Annals of Tourism
Research 34:766–788.
Buckley, P., and S. Witt
1985 Tourism in difficult areas: Case studies of Bradford, Bristol, Glasgow and
Hamm. Tourism Management 6:205–213.
1989 Tourism in difficult areas II: Case studies of Calderdale, Leeds, Manchester
and Scunthorpe. Tourism Management 10:138–152.
748
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
Burns, P.
2003 Tourism Planning: A Third Way? Annals of Tourism Research 31:24–43.
Darwin, J.
2001 Working the Boundaries. Social Issues 1 (24 November 2006).
Dredge, D., and J. Jenkins
2003 Federal-State Relations and Tourism Public Policy, New South Wales,
Australia. Current Issues in Tourism 6:415–443.
Dredge, D.
2006 Policy networks and the local organization of tourism. Tourism Management 27:269–280.
Elliott, J.
1997 Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management. London: Routledge.
Farrell, B., and L. Twining-Ward
2004 Reconceptualizing Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 21:274–295.
Flyvbjerg, B.
1998 Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
Fonesca, J.
2002 Complexity and Innovation in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Giddens, E.
1998 The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Glaser, B.
1998 Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
1992 Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
1978 Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss
1968 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Goulding, C.
2002 Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and
Market Researchers. London: Sage.
Hambleton, R., S. Essex, and L. Mills
1995 The Collaborative Council: A Study of Inter-Agency Working in Practice.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Hill, M.
1997 The Policy Process: A Reader. London: Prentice Hall.
Hope, C., and M. Klemm
2001 Tourism in Difficult Areas Revisited: the Case of Bradford. Tourism
Management 22:629–635.
Jafari, J.
1987 Tourism Models: The Socio-cultural Aspects. Tourism Management
9:82–84.
Jeffries, D.
2001 Governments and Tourism. London: Reed.
John, P.
1998 Analyzing Public Policy. London and New York: Continuum.
Kerr, B., G. Barron, and R. Wood
2001 Politics, Policy and Regional Tourism Administration: A Case Examination
of Scottish Area Tourist Board Funding. Tourism Management 22:649–657.
Ladkin, A., and A. Bertramini
2002 Collaborative Tourism Planning: A Case Study in Cusco, Peru. Current
Issues in Tourism 5:71–93.
Leeds City Council 2003 Leeds Economy Handbook.
Leeds City Council 2007 Leeds Economy Handbook.
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
749
Leach, S.
2004 Political Parties at the Local Level. In British Local Government into the
21st Century, G. Stoker and D. Wilson, eds., pp. 76–90. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Medd, W.
2001 Critical Emergence: Complexity Science and Social Policy Social Issues. 1
http:/www.whb.co.uk/socialissues/tb.htm (24 September 2006).
Midwinter, A.
2001 New Labour and the Modernisation of British Local Government: A
Critique. Financial Accountability and Management 17:311–320.
Mitleton K., and N. Subhan
2002 Experiencing Complexity Thinking in Practice (a narrative). London: LSE
Complexity Research Programme.
Patton, L.
2002 Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks
California: Sage.
Pforr, C.
2005 Three Lenses of Analysis for the Study of Tourism Public Policy: A case
from Northern Australia. Current Issues in Tourism 8:323–343.
Richards, D., and M. Smith
2002 Governance and Public Policy in the UK. Oxford: Oxford Press.
Richards, G.
1991 The UK LA Tourism Survey 1991. Centre for Leisure and Tourism Studies,
London and British Association of Tourism Officers, Plymouth.
Russell, R., and B. Faulkner
1999 Movers and Shakers: Chaos Makers in Tourism Development. Tourism
Management 20:411–423.
Shaw, P.
2002 Changing Conversations in Organizations: a Complexity Approach to
Change. London: Routledge.
Stacey, R.
2003 Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics - The Challenge of
Complexity (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Stevenson, N.
2005 The Context of Tourism Planning: A Case Study of Leeds. Conference
paper presented at International Conference on Tourism Development and
Planning. Patras, Greece. 2002 The role of English Local Authorities in
Tourism Insights ETC 4: A107.
Stevenson, N., and S. Lovatt
2001 The role of English Local Authorities in Tourism Survey 2000. University of
Westminster Unpublished Research Report.
Stoker, G.
2004 Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour.
London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stoker, G., and D. Wilson
2004 British Local Government into the 21st Century. London and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin
1998 Basics of Qualitative Research – Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Thomas, H., and R. Thomas
1998 The Implications for Tourism of Shifts in British Local Governance.
Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4:295–306.
Treuren, G., and D. Lane
2003 The Tourism Planning Process in the Context of Organised Interest,
Industry Structure, State Capacity, Accumulation and Sustainability. Current
Issues in Tourism 6:1–22.
Tyler, D., and C. Dinan
2001a The Role of Interested Groups in England’s Emerging Tourism Policy
Network. Current Issues in Tourism 4:210–253.
750
N. Stevenson et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 732–750
2001b Trade and Associated Groups in the English Tourism Policy Arena.
International Journal of Tourism Research 3:459–467.
Veal, A.
2002 Leisure and Tourism Policy and Planning (2nd ed.). Wallingford and New
York: CABI.
Received 15 October 2007. Resubmitted 15 January 2008. Resubmitted 5 March 2008. Final
Version 21 May 2008. Accepted 21 May 2008. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor:
Egon Smeral
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Purchase answer to see full
attachment