© CAB International 2011. Tourist Destination Governance: Practice, Theory and Issues
(eds E. Laws et al.) 83
This chapter provides an introduction to Part II, with a focus on the complexity, dynamics and infl uences of decision making in the context of tourist destination governance. As with most organizations, public or private, decision making holds the key to effectiveness in governance. Developments related to tourist destina-tions may be distinctive and contentious in nature and may involve complicated and arduous processes in reaching a decision.
The study of decision making has also been pursued over many years (Allport, 1956, as cited in Elbing, 1972; Tannenbaum, 1971; Polya, 1945, as cited in Baron, 1994) and within various disciplines, including psychology, social psychology, economics, mathematical statistics, operations research, planning, political science, management, organizational behaviour, artifi cial intelligence and cognitive science (Jabes, 1982; Wexley and Yuki, 1984; Simon, 1992;
Moorhead and Griffi n, 1995). Edwards and Newmand (1986) indicate that arti-cles about either the study of judgement or decision making have appeared in more than 500 journals.
A number of authors have looked at decision making and the decision-making process with relevance to governance (Friend and Jessop, 1971; Butler and Waldbrook, 1991; Jackson and O’Donnell, 1993). Aspects of decision mak-ing receivmak-ing attention relative to governance have included: the informal versus formal nature of decision making (Resource Assessment Commission, 1993);
those who participate in decision making (Davis and Weinbaum, 1969); infl u-ence and behaviour in decision making (Wild, 1983); the variability and dynamic nature of regional destination decision making (Healy and Zinn, 1985); the major factors in understanding how individuals interact and relate during the decision-making processes (Davis, 1980); inclusion (Wheeler and Sillanpää, 1998) and the degree of openness in the decision-making process (Bains, as cited in Haynes, 1980; Shroff, 1993).
There are also a number of personal and external factors involved in decision making. Hunt et al. (1989) acknowledge the importance of beliefs,
Tourist Destination Governance
84 H. Richins et al.
predispositions, skills, experiences and a distinctive style and process in decision making. Aspects such as parochial self-defi ned interests, individual and divergent agendas and unlimited stakeholders, all vying for attention, also impact the effectiveness of the political decision maker (McGrew and Wilson, 1982).
Researchers in social psychology studying tourism and the broader area of leisure have concentrated primarily on interactions between the tourist and the resident (Smith, 1989). Psychological studies of group travel interactions have often concentrated on intrapersonal factors (i.e. those inherent in the individual), tending to ignore the social context and various situational factors that could have an effect on individual behaviour (Stringer and Pearce, 1984).
Few explorations of governance and decision makers in tourist destinations have been conducted (Richins and Pearce, 2000). Numerous decision-making theories have been explored which lie broadly on a suggested continuum bet-ween highly structured, moderately structured and unstructured (Richins, 1997).
The method and scope of decision making in complex destination governance decisions relate to Elbing’s (1978) environment of decision making, where this includes some consideration of the economic, social, physical, political and technical impacts on the decision makers, and Richins’s (2000) typology of infl u en ces on regional destination decision making, including infl uences of interpersonal, structural, intrapersonal and community needs.
A number of issues relate to a discussion of decision-making theory. These include: confl ict during the process of decision making (Janis and Mann, 1977;
Thomas, 1977, as cited in Darley et al., 1984); consistency (or lack of) in the way people make complex decisions (Edwards and Newmand, 1986); the fragmented nature of considerations and constituents in the decision process (Roberts and Hunt, 1991); uncertainty and risk with the effects of decisions (Archer, 1964;
Friend and Jessop, 1971; Aschenbrenner et al., 1982; Sniezek and Buckley, 1993); bias which may exist from initial impressions, omissions, the information provided or other attitude-forming circumstances (Audley, 1971; Ritov and Baron, 1995); the unique frame of reference for each complex decision process (Kahneman and Miller, as cited in Boles and Messick, 1995); and the ways or norms in how people interact during the decision process (Argyris, 1978).
With direct relevance to governance in regional destination areas, previous research has identifi ed eight major areas of concern for regional destination governance and decision making (Richins, 1999). These are:
1. Image and perception of interests, that is, the perceived poor image and lack of trust in the mind of locals, the perception of corruption, resentment, vested inte-rests and suspicion, and the potential that the public has limited understanding of local government.
2. Remoteness and geography, that is, the large number of regional govern-ments which are dispersed geographically, including the often sparse population of the regions in which governance presides.
3. The lack of responsiveness and disjointed nature of services and responsibilities in destination governance.
4. Challenges in the relationships with other governments, including power concentrated away from regional control, little coordination between regional
Tourist Destination Governance Decision Making 85
governments, duplication, competition and lack of consultation between levels of government.
5. Procedural and structural concerns, that is, lack of accountability, the hindrances of regulatory aspects and lack of adequate information.
6. Concerns involving community interactions, that is, changing sentiment, confl ict and lack of consensus in the community, infl uence of outside pressure from constituents, apathy, lack of concern or lack of consultation with all affected parties.
7. Responsibilities and functions of those involved in governance, including the perceived minor role of regional government and unclearly defi ned roles of government decision makers.
8. Focus and complexity in decision making, that is, the diffi culty in making complex decisions at regional levels, lack of training and skills, and vision.
Decision-making processes are often very complex and diffi cult to understand (Friend and Jessop, 1971; Butler and Waldbrook, 1991; Stanton and Aislabie, 1992) when those with governance responsibilities have tended to become reactive rather than proactive to proposals and development issues (Jones, 1993), when there is fragmentation in both approach and understanding (Dredge and Moore, 1992), when there is uncertainty as to outcomes, choices and impli-cations (Friend and Jessop, 1971) and when there is a lack of appropriate skills and expertise (Jackson and O’Donnell, 1993) in thoroughly comprehending or dealing with the governance process and its consequences. The following indicates a listing of 16 distinct aspects previously identifi ed as representing complexity in destination decision making (Richins, 1997):
● Confl icting attitudes and opinions;
● Lack of understanding or skills regarding the complexities of decision making;
● Diversity of infl uences on decision behaviour;
● Reactive versus proactive approaches to decision making;
● Uncertainty as to decision outcomes and choices;
● Fragmented nature of development applications;
● Inconsistency in the ways in which people make decisions;
● Bias in type and ways in which information is presented;
● Unique frames of reference or social representations regarding decision makers;
● Ways or norms in how people interact during the decision process;
● Variety in levels or phases of the decision process;
● The numerous organizations involved in the process;
● Dependencies in some development decisions;
● Diversity of stakeholders;
● Structured and unstructured stimuli; and
● Fear of change in the community.
Local government decision makers may also be faced with additional dilem-mas, barriers and divergence of opinions concerning the future of their commu-nity. Clark (1988:87) alluded to the dilemma that many of those in governance roles faced, stating ‘from a practical perspective, I suspect that it is going to be
86 H. Richins et al.
diffi cult to arrive at decisions which are socially and environmentally acceptable to the community and, at the same time, economically feasible’. Owens (1985:324) suggested that poorly thought out governance practices should be replaced, stating ‘Local elected offi cials’ traditional reliance on ad hoc decision-making – where decisions are based on who is involved and the circumstances at the time of the decision – must be overcome’. The Resource Assessment Commission’s (1993) review of decision-making processes in the Huon-Channel case study area in Tasmania identifi ed various ‘road blocks’ to future tourism development, especially in the absence of proactive governance practices and cohesive and integrated assessments of development proposals.
The chapters in this part of the book provide for an understanding of deci-sion making related to governance in regional areas with prominent infl uences and effects of tourism development. This includes aspects of the complexities, dynamics, processes and challenges of decision making and the degree to which this provides a context in the governance of tourism, particularly in relation to tourist destination governance.