understanding of tourism and the environment
Nancy Stevenson
Introduction
An understanding of tourism and the environment requires an appreciation of the inter-connected and multiple relationships between humans and their surroundings. The inter-play between nature and society in a rapidly changing world creates problems that are highly complex, con-stantly evolving and ambiguous. These complex problems are not easily understood by traditional linear methods, and researchers in a wide range of disciplines are now exploring what complexity theory might offer to develop understanding of social/environmental interactions. Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) perceive the problem in tourism thus:
The central problem is that tourism researchers schooled in a tradition of linear, specialized, predictable, deterministic, cause-and-effect science, are working in an area of study that is largely nonlinear, integrative, generally unpredictable, qualitative and characterized by causes giving rise to multiple outcomes, quite out of proportion to initial input.
(Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004: 277) This chapter investigates and reviews approaches to, and applications of, complexity theory as a way of developing understanding the relationships between tourism and the environment. There is no unified version of complexity theory reflected in the diversity of applications and approaches that have been used in the tourism literature. These will be identified and briefly discussed under three main headings; chaos and complexity, ecological perspectives and social perspectives. Under each of the headings, specific applications of complexity theory in the tourism field will be identified.
The chapter illustrates and interrogates several complexity concepts referring to case study material and uses a hypothetical resort to explore interactions between its social and ecological aspects. Suggestions are made about how complexity theory might be developed to advance knowledge and understanding of tourism in a way that reflects the relationships between linked social and environmental worlds.
Complexity theory
Byrne defines complexity theory as:
the interdisciplinary understanding of reality as composed of complex open systems with emergent properties and transformational potential.
(Byrne 2005: 95) Multiple approaches have been developed across different disciplinary fields as researchers have sought to understand various aspects of diverse systems within complex environments (Mitleton-Kelly 1998; Medd 2001a; Stevenson et al. 2009). Complexity theory has been developed across disciplines; initially natural sciences (e.g. Prigogine and Stengers 1984), physics (Gell Mann 1994), biology (Goodwin 1997), computer science (Traub and Werschultz 1998) and economics (Brian Arthur et al. 1997), and more recently education (Tosey 2002), management (Stacey 2003), spatial planning (Healey 2007) and sociology (Byrne 2001, 2005; Harvey 2001; Urry 2003, 2005a, 2005b). It is not possible to identify one complexity theory; however, there has been a degree of sharing and borrowing ideas across these different disciplines.
Complexity theory and tourism
A growing number of tourism studies make reference to concepts and ideas from complexity science. They draw from different strands and apply theories in widely varying ways and include a focus on the following: chaotic elements or events (McKercher 1999; Faulkner and Russell 1997); the roles, power and tensions between groups in the policy making process (Tyler and Dinan 2001; Stevenson et al. 2009; Zahra and Ryan 2007); entrepreneurs and destination development (Russell and Faulkner 1999, 2004); as a way of progressing sustainability research (Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004, 2005; McDonald 2009; Plummer and Fennel 2009); as a way of understanding the perceptions and behaviour of tourists (Lacitignola et al. 2010); and the inter-dependent networks involved in providing tourism services and preserving the ecology at a specific at a destination (Pavolvitch 2009).
Farrell and Twining-Ward (2005), Stevenson et al. (2009) and Zahra and Ryan (2007) identify the complexity of complexity science and some of the debates about method and approach. However, in tourism literature it is often difficult to ascertain the sources, boundaries and assumptions that underlie the complexity concepts as they are applied in thefield. The next section will briefly consider three approaches to complexity in the tourism literature.
Chaos and complexity
Chaos and complexity theories have been used in the study of tourism phenomena, particularly incidents and aspects of which are perceived to be chaotic. For example, Russell and Faulkner (1999, 2004) draw from both theories to evaluate entrepreneurial activity on resort development on the Gold Coast in Australia. Faulkner and Russell (1997, 2001, 2003), McKercher (1999), and Russell and Faulkner (1999, 2004) use complexity theory to challenge models and methods that conceptualise tourism phenomena in a simplified, linear manner. They claim that these models ignore both the complexity and dynamism of those phenomena and the environments within which they operate. Their research plays an important role in developing studies that highlight the shortcomings of linear modelling and the potential contribution of both chaos and com-plexity theory to the understanding of tourism problems.
Complexity theory, tourism and the environment
Ecological perspectives
McDonald (2009), Plummer and Fennel (2009), Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011) and Urry (2005a, 2005b) draw from complexity theory as a way of considering the relationships between the natural and social world. Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004, 2005) claim that although tourism research recognises the relationships between human and ecosystems, it has tended to treat them separately and has been dominated by approaches and interpretations from the social sciences.
They call for an approach that draws from developments in ecosystem ecology and highlight research that involves futures modelling and stakeholder workshops to support adaptive systems thinking and scenario building (2005). They claim holistic understanding of the complex adaptive systems in which tourism activities take place might lead to a more sustainable approach. Farrell and Twining-Ward suggest a paradigm shift or‘reconceptualization of the structure of tourism study’ (2004: 288) indicating that complexity theory surmounts or surpasses existing approaches.
Other researchers are more cautious suggesting that‘room should be made for a diversification of perspectives’ (Faulkner and Russell 2003: 216) and that complexity theory might involve
‘reconstructing the tools and theories that we already have’ (Byrne 2005: 98).
Social perspectives
A third strand of literature has emerged more recently, which has been used to understand the complexities underlying changes in organisation structures (Zahra and Ryan 2007), to understand networks and communications (Bramwell 2006) and the process of developing and enacting policy (Stevenson 2006; Stevenson et al. 2008, 2009). Stevenson’s approach to understanding the policy process is developed from‘looser’ (Van Uden 2005) interpretations of complexity and draws from the work of Byrne (2001, 2005), Fonseca (2002), Harvey (2001), Medd (2001a, b), Shaw (2002), Stacey (2003) and Tsoukas and Hatch (2001). These researchers reject traditional model building as a way of seeking to understand complex phenomena in society. Their concerns arise not just around the issues of reducing and simplifying complex phenomena in order to model them, but also around the mistaken assumption that the researcher can analyse the world in an objective-free way. They argue against the direct importation of scientific approaches to modelling complex social phenomena and for looser, nuanced, exploratory and more reflective approaches.
Exploring relationships between society and the environment
The particular interest in complexity theory in this chapter is its potential to explore relationships between what Urry (2005b) terms the physical, biological and social worlds. There is growing debate about the tensions that arise between the activities of humans and their impact on the environment. Some argue that increased interaction and mobility of people at the global scale has resulted in a profound change in the Earth’s environment leading to climatic and ecological changes outside the‘normal’ ranges exhibited over the past 500,000 years (Steffan and Tyson 2004). Some draw attention to the rapidly diminishing supplies of fossil fuels (which we rely on for heat, light and transport), and the changes that these are likely to engender in our lifestyles and consumption patterns (Jones 2010).
These debates are usually framed within a discussion of sustainability, an ambiguous concept that encompasses ideas about decision-making for the longer term and taking account of the wider economic, environmental and social implications of those decisions (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006). Although many governments have made a rhetorical commitment to sustainability, interpretations vary and it has been difficult to achieve in practice. This is in the context of a Nancy Stevenson
global economy that is predominantly market-led, with a high priority for economic growth and efficiency, and the externalisation of the social and environmental costs. Within this system, private and individual interests dominate tourism decision-making, for example the decision to develop hotels and attractions, to offer tourism services and the decision to travel. Tourism activities present apparently contradictory tensions and are characterised by their complexity, crossing social, environmental and economic spheres, normally with the latter dominating in decision-making.
Complexity concepts
The next section will explore several‘complexity’ concepts and use them to explore the dynamic relationships between human and ecological systems in a hypothetical resort. Initially the term complex adaptive system will be explored considering the properties and nature of complex systems.
Then several relevant concepts (co-evolution, emergence, edge of chaos and positive and negative feedback) will be discussed in respect to their contributions to understanding these dynamic relationships.
Complex adaptive systems
Complexity theory seeks to understand changes in complex adaptive systems. The term‘complex’ is used to describe a system in which interaction is detailed, and where agents make choices about their individual actions. A complex system is adaptive in that it influences and is influenced by its environment (Stevenson et al. 2009).
A seaside resort can be conceptualised as a complex adaptive system, which is characterised by an inter-connected social-ecosystem. The resort includes man-made elements that serve tourists and the local community such as hotels, restaurants, a marina, houses, shops and roads. It also includes natural elements, for example the sea, beach, salt marsh, estuary,fish, birds, mammals and plants and microorganisms. These natural and man-made elements are influenced by a variety of evolving processes, which are inter-dependent.
Decisions are made about the development of the resort through a social process of nego-tiation. These decisions are made as people with different interests and responsibilities interact with one another. Negotiations between these groups are ongoing and are shaped by the power structures within the resort and wider society, formal relationships between the public, private and third sector organisations and informal personal factors. These negotiations might involve activities that impact on the environment, such as the building of a new hotel or visitor centre.
There will be a continual tension around competing development and preservation interests, and decisions might be constrained by government regulation and policy aiming to preserve aspects of the environment. Each decision about the resort involves some interests winning and some losing. In this context the idea of a complex adaptive system can be used to draw atten-tion to the way that people within the social system provide opportunities and are constrained by linkages to each other.
Social and ecological elements of the complex system are inter-related and adapt in response to one another. Elements such as the weather, tides and currents, and erosion will provide opportunities and threats to social and biological elements. Behaviour within the system is both
‘patterned’ and ‘unpredictable’ (Battram 1998; Stacey 2003), and relationships and processes are all constantly changing.
The resort has geographically defined boundaries but its social and ecological elements intersect and are nested within other complex social-ecosystems, which constantly adapt and change. So, for example, the salt marsh environment will be affected not only by local activities Complexity theory, tourism and the environment
but also by changes in global systems such as rising sea levels arising from climate change. The relationships within these nested systems are not hierarchical. They are constantly evolving with powerflowing in many directions and non-linear relationships between cause and effect creat-ing an unpredictable dynamic (Byrne 2005; Urry 2005a).
Emergence and co-evolution
Co-evolution is the‘simultaneous evolution of entities and their environments’ encompassing ideas of‘interdependency and mutual adaptation’ (Porter 2006: 6) and ‘the power of interrelationships’
(Battram 1998: 183). It is based on the idea that the ability of any given entity to survive depends on the niche it is filling, other entities around it, the resources it can gather and its past history (Waldrop 1992). In our imaginary resort each element adapts, or co-evolves‘within an environment in which other similar agents are also adapting, so that changes in one agent may have con-sequences for the environment and thus the success of other agencies’ (Gilbert 1995: 148, cited in Urry 2003: 80). The process is influenced by a combination of local and global factors and is two-way, with agents evolving in relation to their environment and vice versa (Porter 2006).
Co-evolution is a powerful force for emergence, which arises from multiple iterations or actions at the local level. Sometimes the collective behaviour of interacting agents results in a system or part of a system adapting and creating an emergent order (Stacey 2003). This emergent order arises through innovation and learning that occurs as the internal structure of systems evolves and changes (Battram 1998; Manson 2001). From a social perspective, emergence can be used to draw attention to the way that allegiances and groupings emerge within our resort and the way that people outside the formal system lobby and influence powerful decision-makers. However, the focus on social behaviours provides a partial picture as peoples’ decisions are affected by the fragilities and possibilities of the physical resources of destinations. In this way, emergence can be seen to
‘flow across the supposedly distinct and purified ‘physical’ and ‘social’ domains (Urry 2003: 77).
Emergence helps us to understand how the capacity of a complex system is greater than the sum of the constituent parts (Battram 1998; Manson 2001; Stacey 2003; Waldrop 1992) or is
‘somehow different from its parts’ (Urry 2003: 24). Consideration of co-evolution and emergence highlight that changes within a resort may be too complex for people to control in the way suggested by‘traditional’ management or planning theory. Farrell and Twining-Ward (2005), Ohl et al. (2010), Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011), Schianetz et al. (2007) and Stevenson et al. (2009) suggest more adaptive, co-operative, inter-disciplinary approaches, with an emphasis on exploration and learning and developing resilience.
The edge of chaos
The dynamic of emergence pushes systems towards the edge of chaos (Battram 1998; Manson 2001;
Tosey 2002). This phase is also termed the zone of complexity (Stacey et al. 2000) or bounded instability (Mitleton-Kelly 1998), and describes the transition phase in a complex system where ordered behaviour co-exists with disordered or turbulent behaviour (Battram 1998; Mitleton-Kelly 1998). It occupies the area between order and chaos, and is a place of intense learning, innovation and creativity where change can occur easily and spontaneously as the system breaks with the past and new systems of order emerge. At the edge of chaos there is a paradoxical dynamic where apparently conflicting elements appear to be operating at the same time (Lewin 1993;
Battram 1998; Mitleton-Kelly 1998; Stacey et al. 2000; Stacey 2003; Tosey 2002).
In terms of understanding the dynamics in our resort, the edge of chaos challenges some of the traditional assumptions that have underpinned decision-making, that is the idea that for success Nancy Stevenson
contradictions and paradoxes must be resolved and the tension that they cause be relaxed. The traditional approach equates success with dynamics of stability, regularity and predictability. The edge of chaos opens up the possibility that contradictions and paradoxes can never be resolved. It high-lights the dynamics of the resort in terms of continuing tension that generates patterns that are irregular, unstable and unpredictable (Stevenson et al. 2009). In our resort, a longstanding approach to sewage disposal might be deemed to be sustainable (i.e. the environment can adapt to this in a way that is considered acceptable). However, this relationship is not stable and an increase in tem-perature in the sea or in the estuary might lead to algae accumulating rapidly, leading to
‘harmful algal bloom’, which threatens both wildlife and the tourism industry. The edge of chaos concept can be used as a way of highlighting the relationships between people and the environment and our ability to control, preserve and protect the marine environments. Urry (2005a) claims that:
Ecological systems are on the edge of chaos without a ‘natural’ tendency towards equili-brium, even if all humans were to depart forever from the scene. Indeed, many ecological systems themselves depend not upon stable relationships but upon massive intrusions. Of extraordinary flows of species from other parts of the globe and of fire, lightning, hurri-canes, high winds, ice storm,flash floods, frosts, earthquakes and so on. The ‘normal’ state of nature is thus not one of balance and repose; the normal state is to be recovering from the last disaster.
(Urry 2005a: 6)
Positive and negative feedback
Negative feedback is‘the process required to produce the dynamics of stability’ (Stacey 2003: 33), with the assumption that links between cause and effect are clear-cut and that decisions will move systems towards equilibrium (Mitleton-Kelly 1998). So, for example, the policy process models discussed by Gunn (2002) and Veal (2002) are based on the assumption of negative feedback. They indicate a process that includes an explicit monitoring stage where the role of the policy maker is to take action to reduce the gap between the intended and the actual outcome.
Complexity theorists (including Brian Arthur et al. 1997; Waldrop 1992) argue that systems are subject to positive feedback, which means that actions may lead to unpredictable outcomes. Posi-tive feedback is the term given to the progressive widening of the gap between the required and the actual results. Consideration of negative and positive feedback highlights how a policy response to a multifaceted problem in a complex environment can be successful at one level and unsuc-cessful at another (Battram 1998; Mitleton-Kelly 1998). For example, people in a destination that is perceived to offer low-quality service standards choose to develop a service training pro-gramme to improve the skills of its workers. This may result in 100 people being trained, and at one level be perceived to be a success. However, if those 100 people then use their training to gain better employment in competing destinations, or in other sectors, the overall outcome of that intervention may exacerbate the problem (Stevenson et al. 2009). In this case the concept of positive feedback draws attention to the implications of free will and human choice, which lead to a range of complex inter-relationships and interactions, which are non-linear and unpredictable.
Implications and applications
The complexity concepts identified in the previous section can be used to explore the inherent intricacies and inter-dependencies associated with interactions between social and ecological Complexity theory, tourism and the environment
elements in complex adaptive systems. They provide a platform from which to critique thinking and modelling, which is based on notions of stability, universality, equilibrium and linear rela-tionships between cause and effect. They emphasise continual evolution and the importance of interactions between elements as they adapt to one another rather than focusing on the individual elements. These interactions occur at different scales and time frames and can be both com-plementary and supportive and competitive and destructive at the same time.
Several studies have adopted complexity concepts as a way of developing understanding about socio-ecological systems and improving the learning capacity and resilience of these sys-tems. Ohl et al. (2010) consider the tensions that arise during the interactions between ecolo-gical and human systems, which can result in changes in bioloecolo-gical diversity in areas. They suggest a complex systems approach that can integrate natural and social science research as a way of understanding dilemmas that span natural and human systems. McDonald (2009) uses complex systems theory to underpin her investigation into tourism activities on the Swan River, Australia. She conceptualises the river as a complex system, recognising the relationships between human activity on the river and its foreshore and the ecology of the river. The tourism aspects of this system form just a small part of the wider system but are inter-connected with both the ecological and social parts of the wider system. Both of these studies identify the non-linearity of processes within complex adaptive systems and highlight the dilemma in trying to predict or envision the behaviour of a system from knowledge of what each component of a system does in isolation.
The complexity concepts identified above require a different approach to managing change.
Zimmerman et al. (1998) claim that‘garbage can decision making’ is appropriate at the edge of chaos.
This type of decision-making is intuitive and is characterised by muddling through, agenda building, brainstorming and dialectical enquiry. This is contrasted with the traditional manage-ment approaches required in an environmanage-ment that is relatively stable and consensual. Farrell and Twining-Ward (2005) and Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011) claim that in the context of uncertainty and constant change it is necessary to developing our understanding of complex adaptive systems and developing their resilience. Schianetz et al. (2007) draw from literature on learning organi-sations and suggest that these ideas might be adopted in tourism destinations enabling them to learn and improve their capacity to identify opportunities and adapt to change in an environ-ment characterised by change.
Complexity theory has the potential to develop understanding across disciplines; however, at present there are some divisions between the approaches advocated in the social and physical sciences (Byrne 2005, Farrell and Twining-Ward 2005; Healey 2007; Medd 2001a, 2001b). In the social sciences there are some concerns that complexity theory should not be applied lit-erally, as a set of rules, methods and models when it is used to understand social phenomena.
These researchers develop a‘softer’ approach to the adoption of complexity theory seeing it as a way to encourage thought and learning as a‘frame of reference – a way of understanding what things are like, how they work, and how they might be made to work’ (Byrne 2001: 7), rather than a set of methods.
Despite this apparent divergence in method and approach in the wider literature, it is possible to identify common concerns and themes across the complexity literature in tourism, particu-larly that which considers systems having both ecological and societal aspects. The main area of agreement is that if the tourism ‘environment’ is characterised by change and instability, it makes little sense to conceptualise it as a stable system and to develop models based on a notion of‘equilibrium’. Complexity theory challenges us to acknowledge that we can influence rather than control action within a complex environment (Tosey 2002). It highlights the need for approaches that are exploratory and intuitive (Stevenson et al. 2009; Zimmerman et al. 1998).
Nancy Stevenson
Suggested ways forward include adaptive approaches to manage resilience and to engender reciprocal social learning (Farrell and Twining-Ward 2005; Tosey 2002; Hjorth and Bagheri 2006), and comparative methods to engage with complex complexity (Byrne 2005).
Conclusion
This chapter provides an introduction to complexity theory, identifying several approaches that have been adopted in the tourism literature and some concepts that might be useful in developing our understanding of relationships and interactions between people and their environment.
Complexity theory presents a plausible challenge to positivism, linear thinking and the notion that people can predict, control and shape complex environments. It helps us think about and develop our understanding of the nature of the relationship between the social world and the physical environment.
In this chapter several complexity concepts are identified and explored by considering a resort as a complex adaptive system. This highlights the complex dynamics that occur as social and ecosystems co-evolve within a geographically defined space. Complexity concepts are used to consider the non-linear and contradictory dynamics within the system, with positive feedback acting to exacerbate initial problems moving the elements within the resort further from equi-librium. The resort system is nested within wider systems, which means the dynamics within the system are affected by decisions made at the global level and in other places, and also that interactions in our resort may have significant effects on other places and other times.
Complexity theory helps us to recognise that society and the environment are inter-related and impact on one another. It challenges linear thinking and positivism and the emphasis of much research on the ordered, and more easily defined, aspects of systems. This encourages us to think holistically, considering problems at different scales and from different angles. Com-plexity theory does not provide a new‘truth’ about the way the world works, but has a role in encouraging researchers to question their assumptions and broaden their thinking. It questions the stability and equilibrium that has traditionally underpinned the conceptualisation of the relationship between society and the environment. It provides a basis from which to explore the dynamics of these relationships in the context of ‘real world’ phenomena, taking account of turbulence and disequilibrium, emergence and co-evolution.
References
Battram, A. (1998) Navigating Complexity. London: The Industrial Society.
Bramwell, B. (2006)‘Actors, Power and Discourses of Growth Limits’, Annals of Tourism Research 33(4) 957–78.
Brian Arthur, W., Durlauf, S. and Lane, D. (1997) The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Byrne, D. (2001) Complexity Science and Transformation in Social Policy in Social Issues 1(2).www.whb.co.uk/
socialissues/tb.htm(last accessed 24 November 2006).
——(2005) ‘Complexity, Configurations and Cases Theory Culture and Society 22(5), 95–111.
Farrell, B. and Twining-Ward, L. (2004)‘Reconceptualizing Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research 31(2), 274–95.
——(2005) ‘Seven Steps Towards Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(2), 109–22.
Faulkner, B. and Russell, R. (1997)‘Chaos and Complexity in Tourism: In Search of a New Perspective’, Pacific Tourism Review 1(1), 29–37.
——(2001) ‘Turbulence, Chaos, Complexity in Tourism Systems: A Research Direction for the New Millennium’, in Faulkner B. et al. Tourism and the 21st Century: Reflections on Experience. London:
Continuum.
Complexity theory, tourism and the environment