Jamal and Getz (1995) suggest some key conditions which have to be met in a joint- planning process to facilitate dissemination and implementation of ideas, integration of different views and solution of conflicts. For a “community-based” planning,co-operation requires participants recognising the high level of interdependence in the territorial plan- ning and management, the benefits which can result from joint actions, a specific willing- ness to implement the decisions made by the community.
The authors highlight the need to involve some key players for a successful process — such as local government and other government organisations which have an impact on the local area, entrepreneurs and trade associations, organisations of citizens, as well as an experienced and recognised leader (whether private or public, individual or company) capable of involv- ing the various stakeholders. Lastly, the success of the initiative strictly depends on the devel- opment of a shared vision and common objectives for a strategic planning, and on the creation of a stable co-operation organisation supporting and monitoring the development planned.
This short review synthetically illustrates a framework of studies and research works on territorial networks characterised by a high heterogeneity as to terminology and variables;
this heterogeneity can be overcome only through an abstraction process aimed at identify- ing wider and unifying concepts including the various configurations.
The Level of Interdependence Among the Actors
A classification is then suggested here allowing the various variables used to interpret the characteristics of the network and based on two synthetic dimensions:
● degree of interdependence among the system’s stakeholders
● degree of centralisation of the system governance functions.
The degree of interdependence among stakeholders is meant as the degree of influence exerted by an individual player on one or more members of the system. The three variables identified by the literature as determinants of the intensity of the interdependence among the players of the territorial system are:
● density of the relationships, meant as the number of links among the organisations of the tourism system, against the total number of links which might be established
● degree of willingness, meant as players’ awareness of their interdependence, and as intention to manage it
● degree of mutual trust (non-opportunistic behaviours).
Therefore, as long as the intensity of the three variables mentioned above increases, there is a shift from a configuration characterised by a low degree of interdependence to a configuration characterised by a high level of interdependence. In this way it is possible to position the tourism systems along a continuum of possible configurations (Figure 8.2), with two opposite positions at the two end points:
● low level of interdependence: organisations belong to the same territorial area but are only linked by proximity links and market relationships. This configuration is charac- terised by spontaneous and unaware interdependences, low degree of relationship den- sity and low degree of mutual trust.
Tourism System Dynamics: A Multi-level Destination Approach 119
● high level of interdependence: organisations, in addition to belonging to the same ter- ritorial area, have the same strategic objectives and a high level of co-ordination. This makes it possible for the system to present itself to the external world (and to be per- ceived by it) as a unitary entity. In this case the configuration is characterised by an aware planned and managed interdependence, high relationship intensity and high trust levels.
The Level of Centralisation of the System Governance Functions
As to the second dimension suggested above, the degree of centralisation of the system governance functions can be meant as a measure of the distribution among all players of the formal and actual powers to influence the evolutionary paths of the system.
The three variables which mostly affect the centralisation level of the system gover- nance functions are:
● recognition of the governance body: meant as the recognition by the organisations inside and outside the system of a body performing strategic functions to orient the sys- tem itself
● degree of strategy formalisation: meant as the degree of use of codified methods and tools when outlining the system development paths
● degree of centrality of the organisations: meant as the distribution of the relationships among the various players, and consequently, the degree of centralisation of the whole network.
Also in this case there is a continuum (Figure 8.3); when the intensity of the variables allowed for increases, there is a shift from a situation characterised by a low level of cen- tralisation of the governance functions (distributed governance) to a high level of central- isation (centralised governance).
Specifically, the configurations which can be found at the two end points of the conti- nuum are:
● low level of centralisation: internal and external organisations do not recognise the gover- nance body, the level of strategy formalisation is low and centralisation level is low as 120 Enrico Bonetti et al.
- - -
+ + +
Low degree of interdependence
High degree of interdependence Relationship density
Trust Willingness
Figure 8.2: Interdependence among the organisations of the system.
Source: Our data processing.
well. The organisations involved adopt decision-making mechanisms based on mutual adjustment; functions are equally distributed
● high level of centralisation: internal and external organisations recognise the governance body, the strategy formalisation level is high, and the degree of relationship centralisa- tion is high as well. The organisations involved adopt hierarchy-based decision-making mechanisms; roles and functions are clearly defined.
The Four Ideal Types of Tourism Systems
Crossing these two aforementioned dimensions, four ideal types of tourism system can be identified (Figure 8.4):
● Market cluster: it is a system where players, although located in the same area and belonging to the same tourism filière, do not establish co-operation relation- ships and do not recognise a unitary governance body. The system evolves following paths determined by exogenous factors, such as market dynamics and individual choices basically made as a result of mutual adjustments within a competitive approach.
● District: it is a system where, like in the market cluster, there is no unitary governance, but differently players try and establish long-lasting co-operation relationships and deci- sion-making processes are jointly implemented. Evolutionary pathways imply co- evolution of the various players and individual choices are based on a multi-lateral adjustment (partnership like).
● Tourism local system: it is a system characterised by close relationships among players and the existence of a governance body capable of orienting development paths.
Decision-making processes are then guided by a key player whose choices are amplified by the close interdependence among all organisations involved.
● Constellation: it is a system with a governance body having strong powers and acting as a core of the relationship network; then, while relationships among the various players are mere market interdependences, relationships with the key player are characterised by hierarchy. Decision-making processes are then guided by the key player, which deter- mines the evolutionary paths the organisations will have to adjust to.
Tourism System Dynamics: A Multi-level Destination Approach 121
- - -
+ + +
Low degree of centralization
High degree of centralization Governance body
recognition Strategy formalization Centrality of the
players
Figure 8.3: Centralisation of the system governance functions.
Source: Our data processing.
With respect to the various tourism system configurations, in the literature there is a debate on the superiority of one configuration over the other ones (meant as capability of supporting the sustainable development of a specific territorial area). Actually, till date there is no study capable of producing univocal empirical evidences of such superiority.
Conversely, it seems more meaningful to assume that the ability of a tourism system to generate competitive products is not only a function of its configuration, but also of the consistency between the configuration itself and a number of contingent factors related to the territorial area and the competitive system.