CAUSAL FACTORS AFFECTING INTEGRATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF TOURISM IN THAILAND

(1)

CAUSAL FACTORS AFFECTING INTEGRATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF TOURISM

IN THAILAND

Nuttaprachya Nantavisit

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated Tourism and Hospitality

Management)

The Graduate School of Tourism Management National Institute of Development Administration

2021

(2)

CAUSAL FACTORS AFFECTING INTEGRATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF TOURISM

IN THAILAND Nuttaprachya Nantavisit

The Graduate School of Tourism Management

Major Advisor (Assistant Professor Kassara Sukpatch, Ph.D.)

The Examining Committee Approved This Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated Tourism and Hospitality Management).

Committee Chairperson (Associate Professor Pimrawee Rocharungsat, Ph.D.)

Committee (Assistant Professor Kassara Sukpatch, Ph.D.)

Committee (Assistant Professor Paithoon Monpanthong, Ph.D.)

Committee (Associate Professor Kanokkarn Kaewnuch, Ph.D.)

Committee (Professor Therdchai Choibamroong, Ph.D.)

Dean (Assistant Professor Paithoon Monpanthong, Ph.D.)

_____/_____/_____

(3)

ABST RACT

ABSTRACT

Title of Dissertation CAUSAL FACTORS AFFECTING INTEGRATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF

TOURISM IN THAILAND Author Nuttaprachya Nantavisit

Degree Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated Tourism and Hospitality Management)

Year 2021

The research of “Causal factors affecting integrated policy implementation of Tourism in Thailand.” is the study of causal factors affecting the integrated policy implementation and the proposal of integrated policy implementation model of tourism to implicate administrative policies' directions to sectors responsible for implementing policy based on the national tourism development plan. Therefore, the researcher revised the literature review, concepts, theories and related researches in both of Thailand and overseas in order to achieve the research objectives. Then, there are four main issues such as The core of the tourism development plan of Thailand and implementation situation, Concepts of policy implementation, Concepts, causes and policies in the study of psycho-behavioral science, and Concepts of integration.

This research conducts quantitative research that the Samples group are 270 implementers who are utilized in the research contain individuals or officers under related public sectors in the operational level and managerial level. To study the causal factors which affect on the policy implementation and the developing model of integrated policy implementation, it needs to use advanced statistics including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation model (SEM).

The study results, according to the objectives of the work, were found that the behavioral intention and potential facilities are causal factors based on the hypothesis that the integrated policy implementation in the Thailand’s tourism has a better direct tendency. Furthermore, the behavioral intention and potential facilities have the highest influence as the first rank and second rank, respectively. On the other hand, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and attitude toward the behavior are causal factors based on the hypothesis that tourism's integrated policy implementation in Thailand has a better indirect tendency by arranging the order of influences to the

(4)

iv

integrated policy implementation.

In terms of the policy implication obtained from this work, it was found that the agencies responsible for implementing the policy. It should be Encourage the intention of conducting the policies of Thailand’s tourism into the integrated implementation And support the potential facilities in the context of Thailand’s tourism.

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank all who concern and contributed to the completion of this Dissertation.

First, I give thanks to myself for the endeavor and the determination to do this important work.

I am so grateful to the graduate school of tourism management at the National Institute of Development Administration for the scholarship that makes it possible for me to study here.

I would like to express the deepest my special appreciation and thanks to my advisor Asst. Prof. Kassara Sukpatch, Ph.D who encouraged and directed me for allowing me to grow as a researcher. Her challenges brought this work towards a completion. It is with her supervision that this work came into existence.

I would like to thank my co advisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Poonpong Suksawang who encouraged me about structural equation modeling (SEM).

I would like to thank my committee members, Asst. Prof. Dr. Pimrawee Rocharungsat, Prof. Dr. Therdchai Choibamroong, Asst. Prof. Dr. Paithoon Monpanthong, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kanokkarn Kaewnuch, and Asst. Prof. Dr. Worarak Sucher for serving as my committee member even at hardship. I also want to thank you for letting my defense be an enjoyable moment and for your brilliant comments and suggestions.

I give deep thanks to the Professors and lecturers at the graduate school of tourism management, the librarians, and other officers of the faculty.

A special thanks to my family and my special person. Words cannot express how grateful I am to those who encouraged me and prayed for me throughout the time of my research. This dissertation is heartily dedicated to my family and my special person. For any faults, I willingly take full responsibility.

Nuttaprachya Nantavisit August 2021

(6)

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Researches Based on Policy Implementation in the First Issue... 60

Table 2.2 Researches Based on Policy Implementation in the Second Issue ... 62

Table 2.3 Researches Based on Policy Implementation in the Third Issue ... 65

Table 2.4 Table of Synthesizing Causal Factors into Policy Implementation ... 67

Table 2.5 The Factors Under the Potential Facilities Variable Affect on Policy Implementation. ... 77

Table 2.6 Related Researches of Factors in Competence of Policies ... 82

Table 2.7 Related Researches in Factors of Resources for Policies ... 85

Table 2.8 Related Researches in Environmental Factors of Policies... 88

Table 2.9 Related Researches in Factors of Stakeholders in Policies... 90

Table 2.10 Related Researches in Factors of Organizational Attribute ... 93

Table 2.11 Related Researches in Factors of Leader’s Attribute... 97

Table 2.12 Related Researches in Factors of Implementors’ Attribute ... 100

Table 2.13 Related Researches in Factors of Coordinated Attribute ... 103

Table 2.14 Results of Synthesizing the Causal Relationship Framework of Occurred Behaviors Through the Theory of Planned Behavior ... 128

Table 2.15 Results of Synthesizing Researches That Intentional Variable in Behavioral Action is Considered as a Causal Variable or Predicted Variable That Is Crucial to Those Desired Behaviors ... 133

Table 2.16 Results of Synthesizing the Researches That the Variable of Perceived Behavioral Control is Considered as a Causal Variable or Predicted Variable That are Important to Behavioral Intention Directly and Those Desired Behaviors in Both of Indirect Ways. ... 138 Table 2.17 Results of Synthesizing Researches That the Variable of Subjective Norm

is Considered as a Causal Variable or Predicted Variable That is

(14)

Important to Behavioral Intentions in Direct Way and Those Desired

Behaviors in Indirect Way ... 143

Table 2.18 Results of Synthesizing Researches That the Variable of Attitude Toward the Behavior is Considered as a Causal Variable or Predicted Variable That is Important to Behavioral Intention Directly and Those Desired Behaviors Indirectly ... 148

Table 2.19 Synthesis of Dimensions That Indicate the Integrated Policy Implementation ... 167

Table 3.1 Hypothesis ... 175

Table 3.2 Structure of Operational Definition in the Integrated Policy Implementation ... 178

Table 3.3 Structure of Operational Definitions on Potential Facilities ... 179

Table 3.4 Structure of Operational Definitions on Behavioral Intention... 180

Table 3.5 Structure of Operational Definitions on Perceived Behavioral Control .. 181

Table 3.6 Structure of Operational Definitions on Subject Norm ... 182

Table 3.7 Structure of Operational Definitions on Attitude Toward the Behavior .. 183

Table 3.8 Questions on Concepts and Theories of Policy Implementation ... 197

Table 3.9 Rating the attitude based on Likert Scale ... 201

Table 3.10 Levels of Opinion Towards the Causal Factors from Concepts and Theories of Policy Implementation ... 202

Table 3.11 Questions on Behavioral Intention ... 203

Table 3.12 Questions on Perceived Behavioral Control ... 206

Table 3.13 Questions on Subjective Norm ... 208

Table 3.14 Questions on Attitude Toward the Behavior ... 210

Table 3.15 Levels of Opinion Towards the Causal Factors from the Theory of Planned Behavior ... 212

Table 3.16 Question on Integrated Policy Implementation ... 213

Table 3.17 Levels of Opinion Towards the Variables of Integrated Policy Implementation ... 215

Table 3.18 Goodness of Fit Index of Model ... 222

Table 4.1 Symbols and Abbreviations Used in Data Analysis ... 227

Table 4.2 Data of Respondent’s Personal Features ... 232

(15)

Table 4.3 Basic Statistics on the Latent Variable of Policy Components and the

Observed Variables ... 234

Table 4.4 Basic Statistics on Latent Variable of Behavioral Intention and Observed Variables ... 236

Table 4.5 Basic Statistics on the Latent Variable of Perceived Behavioral Control and the Observed Variables ... 237

Table 4.6 Basic Statistics on the Latent Variable of Subjective Norm and the Observed Variables ... 239

Table 4.7 Basic Statistics on the Latent Variable of Attitude Toward the Behavior and the Observed Variables ... 240

Table 4.8 Basic Statistics on the Latent Variable of Integrated Policy Implementation and the Observed Variables ... 241

Table 4.9 Correlation Coefficient between Observed Variables – Part 1 ... 243

Table 4.13 Analysis Results of Multicollinearity on Observed Variables of Independent Variable ... 251

Table 4.14 Statistical Test Results by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Index Analysis by Katser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) on Measurement Model of the Latent Variable of Potential Facilities (PTF) ... 253

Table 4.15 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent Variable of Potential Facilities ... 254

Table 4.16 Matrix of Factor Loading on Measurement Model in Terms of The Latent Variable of Potential Facilities ... 255

Table 4.17 Statistical Test Results by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Index Analysis by Katser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) on Measurement Model of Latent Variable of Behavioral Intention (BIT) ... 257

Table 4.18 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent Variable of Behavioral Intention ... 258

Table 4.19 Matrix of Factor Loading on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent Variable of Behavioral Intention ... 259

(16)

Table 4.20 Statistical Test Results by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Index Analysis by Katser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) on Measurement Model of Latent

Variable of Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) ... 261 Table 4.21 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model in

Terms of the Latent Variable of Perceived Behavioral Control ... 262 Table 4.22 Matrix of Factor Loading on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent

Variable of Perceived Behavioral Control ... 263 Table 4.23 Statistical Test Results by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Index Analysis

by Katser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) on Measurement Model of Latent

Variable of Subjective Norm (SJN) ... 264 Table 4.24 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model in

Terms of the Latent Variable of Subjective Norm ... 265 Table 4.25 Matrix of Factor Loading on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent

Variable of Subjective Norm ... 266 Table 4.26 Statistical Test Results by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Index Analysis

by Katser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) on Measurement Model of Latent

Variable of Attitude Toward the Behavior (ATB) ... 267 Table 4.27 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model in

Terms of the Latent Variable of Attitude Toward the Behavior ... 268 Table 4.28 Matrix of Factor Loading on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent

Variable of Attitude Toward the Behavior ... 269 Table 4.29 Statistical Test Results by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and Index Analysis by Katser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) on the Measurement Model of the Latent Variable of Integrated Policy Implementation (IPIM) ... 270 Table 4.30 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Measurement Model in

Terms of the Latent Variable of Integrated Policy Implementation ... 271 Table 4.31 Matrix of Factor Loading on Measurement Model in Terms of the Latent

Variable of Integrated Policy Implementation ... 272 Table 4.32 Results of Structural Equation Modeling Developed with Empirical Data

... 274 Table 4.33 Matrix of Factor Loading of Integrated Policy Implementation ... 275

(17)

Table 4.34 Results of Coefficient Analysis on Direct and Indirect Influences of Integrated Policy Implementation Model in the Context of Tourism in

Thailand ... 280

Table 4.35 Summarize the Test Results of Defined Hypotheses ... 283

Table 4.36 First Policy Implication ... 286

Table 4.37 Second Policy Proposal ... 290

Table 4.38 Indicators of Important Purposes on Integrated Policy Implementation 298 Table 5.1 Audit Criteria on Consistency Index of the Model of Integrated Policy Implementation in the Context of Thailand’s Tourism ... 305

Table 5.2 Operational Procedures of 1^st Policy Implications ... 317

Table 5.3 Operational Procedures of 2^nd Policy Implications... 320

(18)

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Tourism System ... 35

Figure 2.2 Sustainable Tourism Development and Administration... 37

Figure 2.3 Hierarchy of the Policy Implementation Process ... 43

Figure 2.4 Procedures of Policy Implementation ... 45

Figure 2.5 The Relationship Between Organizations and Stakeholders in the Process of Policy Implementation ... 49

Figure 2.6 Case Study About Levels of Policy Transformation into the Implementation and Levels of Stakeholder in Policy ... 54

Figure 2.7 Four Concepts of the Organization That Appears in the Theory of Policy Implementation ... 58

Figure 2.8 The Factors Under the Potential Facilities Variable Affect on Policy Implementation. ... 76

Figure 2.9 Summary of the Relationship Framework in Causal Factors That Have an Impact on the Policy Implementation ... 106

Figure 2.10 Academic Gap of Policy Implementation Derived from Synthesis of Study ... 111

Figure 2.11 Interactionalism Model ... 115

Figure 2.12 Structure of Conceptual Framework of Planned Behavior Theory ... 122

Figure 2.13 Factors in Behavioral Intention and Desired Behaviors That Actually Happened ... 135

Figure 2.14 Factors in Perceived Behavioral Control with Behavioral Intention and Expression/ Performance of Desired Behaviors That Actually Happened ... 141

Figure 2.15 Factors in Subjective Norm with Behavioral Intentions and Expression/ Performance of Those desired behaviors that actually happened ... 146

(19)

Figure 2.16 Factors in Attitude Toward the Behavior with Behavioral Intention and Expression/ Performance of Those Desired Behaviors That Actually

Happened ... 151

Figure 2.17 Summary of the Relationship Framework in Causal Factors of Psycho- Behavioral That Influence on the Policy Implementation ... 153

Figure 2.18 Structured Conceptual Framework of Policy Implementation as Mixed Theory ... 157

Figure 2.19 Important Dimensions of Integration ... 165

Figure 2.20 Dimensions That Indicate the Integration ... 168

Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework in the First Phase of Research ... 174

Figure 4.1 Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Latent Variable of Potential Facilities ... 255

Figure 4.2 Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Latent Variable of Behavioral Intention ... 259

Figure 4.3 Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Latent Variable of Perceived Behavioral Control ... 263

Figure 4.4 Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Latent Variable of Subjective Norm ... 266

Figure 4.5 Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Latent Variable of Attitude Toward the Behavior... 269

Figure 4.6 Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Latent Variable of Integrated Policy Implementation ... 272

Figure 4.7 Model of Integrated Policy Implementation in the Context of Thailand’s Tourism ... 277

(20)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Significant of the Problem Research

In the present era of several developing countries including Thailand, it is undeniable that tourism is playing an important role in various aspects such as economics which are an important source of income, career building and growth distribution into various sectors (Britton, 1982; Kachai Soprasert, 1996; Oratai Krutwaysho & Bill Bramwell, 2010). While many people are traveling from one place to another place, it leads to the movement of people and economy movement because all travel processes always generate an expense (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Dwyer, 2010;

Stabler, Papatheodorou, & Sinclair, 2009; Suwat Juthakorn, 2014). Besides of economics, social aspect generates from social gathering between cultures, races, lifestyles, languages, levels of social status and so on. The highest ideal believes that tourism will lead to a good understanding between different people and world peace eventually (Cohen, 1972 ; Sharpley, 2018 ; Suwat Juthakorn, 2014 ; Wood, 2018).

According to environmental aspect, it generates awareness and pushing. Additionally, it emphasizes on preserving and reviving resources in order to maintain a good condition and minimize damages in many department and population sector. This is due to the fact that tourism is an activity that need to depend on high natural resources and environments in order to attract tourists (Glasson & Therivel, 2013; J. C. Liu, Sheldon, & Var, 1987; Tourism authority of Thailand, 2012; Weaver & Oppermann, 2000)

On the other hand, the increasing importance leads to a negative reflection aggressively if the management is inefficient. For instance, cost of living in Thailand has increased in provinces that obtain a tourism popularity. Because of the intense competition of hospitality industry (Kasikorn Research Center, 2017) or environment destroyed by too many numbers of tourists that exceed the capacity of area, tourist attractions cannot revive suddenly. According to the evaluation result of sustainability

(21)

in natural resources and environments, it unbelievably decreased because Thailand was ranked at 116 out of 141 countries throughout the world ( National Tourism Policy Committee, 2 0 1 2 ) . Especially in the year of 2018 and 2019, Bangkok and many provinces had to suffer the particulate matter 2.5 microns that can creep into the body through the through respiratory system. This is a peril to the health of human that was resulted from environments which directly weaken the quality of people’s life derived from the establishments and other constructions (Kom Chad Luek, 2019).

Otherwise, it was resulted from the security of Thailand that was ranked at 132 out of 141 countries ( National Tourism Policy Committee, 2 0 1 2 ) and the serious circumstance in 2019 that Chinese tourists suffered shipwreck at Phuket province. As a consequence, it was a cause that Thailand lost revenues from booking accommodations over 42,000 million baht. Therefore, this points out devastating impacts that are required to create measures for re-reliability ( Petchadej Saengkanphet, 2018 July, 20-26) and so on.

According to situation and relationship in positive and negative sides, tourism generates advantages and disadvantages dramatically(A. Liu & Wall, 2006). Then, the government which is responsible for good governance turns to pay attention and support increasingly. In addition, it has been gathered in major strategic plan of developing country. From all national economic and social development plans, the existing contents appear in forms of opinions and recommendations of tourism development and prevention, conservation and revival that intervene in various strategies (Office of the National Economics and Social Development Council, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2007, 2012, 2017; Office of the National Economics Development Council, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1972).

In 2007, tourism was considered as national agenda for the first time. The cabinet resolution assigned Ministry of Tourism and Sports to create recovery strategic plan of tourism crisis in short-term and long-term from several situations.

For example, subprime mortgage crisis or hamburger crisis was economic problem and obviously occurred during 2007 and 2008. Political conflict, global climate change and environment have an impact on tourism industry and well-being of people widely. Therefore, it was the origin of the first national tourism development plan (2012-2016) that was similar to a frame for tourism sector. In addition, it can be a tool

(22)

for coordination and integrated plan/tourism project ( National Tourism Policy Committee, 2012).

The core of the first national tourism development plan (2012-2016) emphasized on creating sustainability, building immunity in all dimension that associated with tourism, increasing revenue along with income distribution fairly and paying attention to create mechanics with the participation of all sectors. Integrated collaboration of all levels was a driving power to lead to implementation in order to generate obvious outcomes in national and regional levels (Chanapol Techvitul, 2016;

Napaporn Janchai, 2015; Sarochar Phraepasa, 2014).

Nevertheless, when period of plan expired, the result of driving strategic evaluation did not reach the expectations. Even though it succeeded and accepted in generating income and increasing competitiveness, but the achievement ratio was only 41 percent that can be able to implement whole directions efficiently because the management lacked holistic and driving plan to implementation was shortage in integrated collaboration between various parties that related with public and private sectors. Additionally, many sectors did not consider tourism development as a major responsibility of sectors. So, the development of tourist destinations and infrastructure cannot reach the prospective purposes ( Chanapol Techvitul, 2 0 1 7 ; Ministry of Tourism and Sports, 2 0 1 8 ; National Tourism Policy Committee, 2 0 1 7 ; Sarochar Phraepasa, 2014). Tourism of the country has suffered various fundamental problems such as the number of tourist, revenue concentration in main tourism cities, negative tourism image that need to be improved suddenly, lack of developing new tourist destinations, issue of accessing tourist attractions and connection between tourist attractions, limitations in development and supports in human resources of tourism sector, obsoleteness and legal conflicts regarding tourism and lacks of depth information for analyzing and planning tourism development, especially in sustainability of natural resources and environment that derived from decadences of natural attractions (Chanapol Techvitul, 2017; Ministry of Tourism and Sports, 2018;

Napaporn Janchai, 2015; National Tourism Policy Committee, 2017; Sarochar Phraepasa, 2014).

(23)

The first national tourism development plan (2012-2016) was caused by lack of holistic management and driving plan into implementation lack of integrated collaboration between parties that associated with public and private sectors. In addition, several sectors did not consider tourism development as a major responsibility of sectors. Therefore, it resulted in many problems that still did not be solved (National Tourism Policy Committee, 2012). For the content of next tourism development plan, the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021) has emphasized on participation between related sectors at local level to implement all levels of tourism development and have a connection point of development between management in local level and policies. Using mechanism and development tools of public, private and population sectors can operate and respond towards solutions and developing tourism capability in each strategies and areas efficiently. The system of driving plan to implementation connected in all levels and created understanding with sectors and associated parties in order to generate integrated collaboration along with development and reinforcement in capability of various sectors (National Tourism Policy Committee, 2017).

Therefore, the integration of operations between sectors was considered as significant expectation that need to seek directions for driving policy implementation efficiently and effectively. Based on the concept, many sectors that conduct dependent relationship participate, connect and coordinate harmoniously and completed holistic ( Office of the Public Sector Development Commission, 2 0 0 3 ; Sookyuen Tepthong, 2 0 0 4 ) . According to emphasis on the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021), it was consistent with researches of academicians in policy implementation of Thailand. Moreover, it was proposed in the same direction that integration is a solution to the success of driving policy implementation.

The study of Kachai Soprasert (1 9 9 6 ) regarding “Tourist-police and Crime- Related to tourism: Problems of Policy Implementation” suggested that the majority of problems derived from collaboration of other related sectors and coordination issue with tourist police. Based on roles and responsibilities of tourism sector, tourism policy was not consistent as same as the study of Rawipa Homsettee (1 9 9 8 ) about “ Effectiveness of Tourism Policy Implementation: A Case Study of Chiang Rai”

demonstrated that not only factors of policy qualification, but mechanism of driving

(24)

policy process like human resources was very important including collaboration process and cooperation in similar direction in order to encourage the filling in gap or factors that will generate problems in the future.

The study of Oratai Krutwaysho (2006) regarding “Tourism Policy Implementation in the Developing World: the Case of Phuket, Thailand suggested that the research findings was consistent with previous two researches. Additionally, it indicated that the tourism policy of Phuket province has suffered problems about overlapping government administration and lack of law enforcement action strictly that generated the observations on policy implementation which was affected by organizational culture, social values and cultures, social class and social relationships and support system. This resulted in no cooperation and participation and then these were the sources of problem. In addition, the research findings of Sarochar Phraepasa (2014) regarding “Tourism Policy Implementation in Thailand” suggested that most accomplishments in tourism policy implementation derived from collaboration between sectors, dependence on external sectors and attribute of sector that conducted an important role and so on. In the recent year, the study of Praedau Foopanichpruk (2018) regarding “A Study of Policy Implementation under the National Tourism Development Plan, 2012-2016, by the Active Beach Tourism Cluster found out that the conditions of integrated policy implementation in areas was at low level. As a consequence, most outcomes from the implementation did not meet the expectations of the National Tourism, Development Plan at that time and so on.

Thereby, the achievement of driving policy implementation of public sector was not reach expectations. This would mean that administration and collaboration between parties of public and private sectors were not be integrated. Then, the main purpose of this research is to find causal factors of policy implementation for enhancing integrated collaboration between sectors or organization associated with driving tourism policy implementation as well as developing in the model of integrated policy implementation according to purposes of the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021).

(25)

1.2 Academic Gap of Policy Implementation

To encourage empirical findings that mention in background and significant of the problem research, it needs to find factors of policy implementation in order to support the integrated collaboration between sectors or organizations that related with driving tourism policy implementation and development in the model of integrated policy implementation according to purposes of the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021). This research conducts literature reviews from previous researches in Thailand and overseas that related with process of policy implementation. Over 130 researchers found that the majority of research emphasized on finding causal factors of success or failure of development plan or national policy implementation. Moreover, those researches always studies deeply in each context of policy. In addition, the research of C. D. Hall (2013) studies regarding the context of policy implementation and factors and conditions of policy implementation or the research of Pradtana Yossuk and Pongsakorn Kawichai (2017) studied about problems and obstacles for recommending the concepts that appropriate with the process of organic farming’s policy implementation. Including the work of Akom Chaikeaw (1 9 9 0 ); Apostolopoulou and Pantis (2 0 0 9 ); Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, and Zellman (1977); Chawadee Koson (2011); Dusit Thamdee (2004); Edward (1980); Hambleton (1983); Larson (1980); Markle (1988); O'Toole Jr and Montjoy (1 9 8 4 ) ; Petcharat Saisombut (2 0 0 8 ) ; Pitts (2 0 0 7 ) ; Sebring (1 9 7 7 ) ; Theppasak Boonyarataphan (1 9 9 3 ) ; Tongbai Sudcharee (1 9 9 2 ) ; Wanna Jerupan (2 0 0 8 ) and others.

Besides of those studies above, some researches were studied on the development of theoretical model in policy implementation by seeking methods and directions in order to improve better policy, plan and implementation in the scheme . For instance, the study of Pornpimol Plangsrisakul (2013) studies about policy factors that hold relationships and predictions for success by analysing the directions of policy factors that influenced the achievement of policy implementation in terms of educational quality assurance of fundamental institution in Bangkok. Otherwise, the study of Chaiyon Praditsil (2013) proposed alternatives of theoretical framework regarding policy implementation for Thai society. Including the work of Allison and

(26)

Zelikow (1971); Blair (1996); Chaiyon Praditsil (2013); Chanad Bhowbhandee (2002); Chedsada Mingchai (2009); Fisun Yuksel (2002); Hatsaya Pimsaket (2012);

Kan Sekkhunthod (2009); Matland (1995); Oramanee Soonthornnonta (2009); Oratai Krutwaysho (2006); Oratai Krutwaysho and Bill Bramwell (2010); Pornpimol Plangsrisakul (2013); Pressman and Wildavsky (1984); Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979, 1980); Sirilucksm Tantayakul (2014); Sorg (1983); Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer (2002); Thannaphat Khotsing (2013); Tummers (2011, 2012); Tummers and Bekkers (2014); Tummers, Steijn, and Bekkers (2012); Van Meter and Van Horn (1975); Voradej Chandarasorn (1990, 2011); Wang and Ap (2013); Watts (2009a, 2009b) and others.

According to the study of policy implementation process, it studied about elements of changing abstract process into concrete project that can be implement and investigate the achievement level. For example, the study of Supahp Chumrum (2013) was about the process of public process that encourage and improve the quality of life into implementation. Furthermore, the study of Thannaphat Khotsing (2013) studies regarding policy implementation process, procedures and conditions that influence on productivity of community policy. Including the work of Bardach (1977); Brinkerhoff (1996); Choi (1991); Chokbandransuk (2007); Crosby (1996); Gong and Janssen (2012); Honig (2004); Kachai Soprasert (1996); Kitti Intharakul (2010); Lawn-Day (1994); Lipsky (2010); Makawan Suwanaruang (1993); Makinde (2005); Nantasak Poolsuk (1996); Paycharin Imphan (2006); Prateep Natetaweewat (2008); Rawipa Homsettee (1998); Spillane et al. (2002); Supahp Chumrum (2013); Thannaphat Khotsing (2013); Tsukada (1997); Watchara Promcharoen (1996) and so on.

According to the literature reviews, it was found that lots of previous researches in terms of tourism and other aspects have three similar directions including the study of factors that influence on effective policy implementation, the context of policy implementation in each area, situation and sector or many developing model of policy implementation such as the work of Attia (1999); Baum (1992); Brendehaug, Aall, and Dodds (2017); Chanapol Techvitul (2016, 2017);

Chanin Sriwisut (2017); Chawadee Koson (2011); Dodds (2007); Dodds and Butler (2010); Duangta Jatuporn (2000); Duangta Promraksa (2015); Fisun Yuksel (2002);

C. M. Hall (2011); Hanqin Zhang, Chong, and Jenkins (2002); Kachai Soprasert

(27)

(1996); Kaewta Muangasame and McKercher (2015); Koubida, Small, and Yasin (2017); C.-H. Liu, Tzeng, and Lee (2012); J. C. Liu et al. (1987); Manalo (2017);

Maxim (2016); Napaporn Janchai (2015); Narunat Yãnaviriyo (2013); Oratai Krutwaysho (2006); Oratai Krutwaysho and Bill Bramwell (2010); Panidol Niyomka (2001); Praedau Foopanichpruk (2018); Prapussorn Yotaruk (2014); Rawipa Homsettee (1998); Rodriguez, Williams, and Hall (2014); Saowalak Wiboonkarn (2011); Sarochar Phraepasa (2014); Sirilucksm Tantayakul (2014); Wang and Ap (2013); Watts (2009a, 2009b) and others. These researches studied on the view point of various theories and variables. Even though existing theories attempt to identify the causes and solutions of failure or the achievement of co-policy, but there are too many theories that are difficult to implement in analytical framework. Moreover, those are also difficult to forecast the most significant variable under several circumstances (O'Toole Jr & Montjoy, 1984; Ruengwit Ketsuwan, 2008; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1979, 1980). In Thailand, the majority has still maintained the education based on both of classic implementation models and classic model of evaluation. For instance, the studies have searched successful policy implementation that have studied through observing the context of policy implementation process. In the study of Praedau Foopanichpruk (2018) regarding “A Study of Policy Implementation under the National Tourism Development Plan, 2012-2016, by the Active Beach Tourism Cluster, the research findings demonstrated the implementation process in the policy implementation such as what kind of problems are and which factors need to be adjusted. According to the outcomes, the responses did not differ from previous studies that problems have still existed in the issue of integration that has required the cooperation, participation, teamwork and others. At present, the paradigms have been modified. And then, the policy implementation was viewed that mutual adjustment between the bureaucratic system and the use of local officers’ discretion. This would mean that the actual implementation has been adapted by the practitioners who adapt to the policy. And then, the policy was modified to be consistent with the facts by emphasizing on the study of behavior and dynamic attributes in policy implementation (Lipsky, 2010).

(28)

However, the minority of previous researches, especially in Thailand studied regarding behavioural development or the performance of integrated collaborations between sectors in policy implementation deeply including elements and behaviours of officers that will conduct several factors into implementation in order to reach the most successful policy. Therefore, there are three supportive causes, the details are as follows;

The first point is the practitioners who are an actor in policy implementation including operation level that implemented in areas or directly contacting with target group of policy and having their own discretions. Then, the policy might be changed and not meet the expectations (Lipsky, 2010; Tummers & Bekkers, 2014; Winter, 1990, 2006). Otherwise, the behaviors of management level or the heads of department were important to the work behaviors of their subordinates because the administration and resource managers were required to follow and conduct the policy and they influence on the feelings of their subordinates (Duchduen Bhanthumnavin, 2003, 2004; Kanit Duanghasdee, Jautpol Panraksa, & Neon Pinpradit, 2005;

Tummers, 2011, 2012; Tummers et al., 2012). For example, the study of Lipsky (2010) regrading “Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service” studied and diagnosed the behaviors of officers. According to the research findings based on Top-Down Theory, it could not assure that the policy implementation will be successful because the analysis in the use of officers’

discretion was required. Moreover, the study of Tummers (2011) regarding

“Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework” evaluated the willingness of Dutch health experts who implemented the new policy. According to the research findings, it pointed out that people is an important cause that the new policy to the implementation was discontinued by factors that had an impacts on them and others.

the second point is the behaviors of officers that had importantly influenced on the achievements or failures of policy implementation. The is due to the fact that the policy could not implement various factors by itself and then those officers were required to generate outcomes (Tummers, 2011, 2012; Tummers & Bekkers, 2014;

Tummers et al., 2012). For instance, the study of Tummers (2012) regarding “Policy alienation of public professionals: The construct and its measurement studied about

(29)

the policy that was transferred into the implementation. Additionally, this study proposed that important factors of humans’ thoughts and feelings can affect to the achievement in transferring the policy and implementing as a statistical significance.

Two years later, the study of Tummers and Bekkers (2014) regarding “Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy and the importance of discretion” was based on the concept of Lipsky that studied about “Street-level bureaucrats” by analyzing factors that had an impact on decision making and willingness in the operation of Street-level bureaucrats and others.

The third point is the behavior of target group that was an important knowledge which was waiting to fulfill the integrated policy implementation (Lester, Bowman, Goggin, & O'Toole Jr, 1987; Lester & Goggin, 1998; Winter, 1990, 2006).

For example, the studies from overseas in the first point indicated that the direction of studying the policy implementation in the past had a growing interest in the implementors’ minds and actions. On the other hand, the concepts of each model was occurred in most studies of Thailand. Then, the problems of the policy implementation were generated from poor management system. As a result, applying the model did not consider the concepts or minds which were the origin of action. In addition, the researches of policy implementation in Thailand neglected other viewing frameworks such as the view of mental behavioral science that studied about finding psychological causes of generating human behaviors and human relations. However, this focused only on the system framework. For instance, the study of Praedau Foopanichpruk (2 0 1 8 ) regarding “A Study of Policy Implementation under the National Tourism Development Plan, 2012-2016, by the Action Beach Tourism Cluster studied a connection consistency of strategy that related with tourism development of the active beach tourism cluster. According to the first national tourism development Plan (2012-2016), it found out that the policy of tourism administration and development was operated between public sectors that were holistic, had integrated projects, had a very low rate in coordination and cooperation between sectors and little participation of community and private sectors.

In reality, Thailand still faces problems in implementing traditional policies.

Seen from the proposal to solve the problem that is still top to bottom. For example the dissemination in the content of the plan or policy to an organization and related

(30)

parties to making understanding and participation or providing education and cooperation. Which the proposal can be considered correct and consistent with the past study results but it still neglects to consider the psychological and behavioral dimensions of those who will implement the policy. Due to the important cause of understanding human behavior, especially the behavior of policy implementation, is caused by the influence of consciousness or attitude.

When looking into the past, most of policy implementation since the past until the present in Thailand had paid attention on collecting detail information about the policy or project at practice places. Furthermore, the studies that had a wide scope can be acknowledged by political factors, economic factors, social factors, factors of bureaucratic system and other technical factors. With this reason, the previous accumulation of knowledge did not emphasize on intensive educational methods.

Otherwise, the quantitative analysis did not obtain any outstanding theoretical frameworks or models that were complete and sufficient in generating the understanding of problems which were appeared in the process of policy implementation (Voradej Chandarasorn, 2011).

Therefore, the study of causal factors of behavioural policy implementation is an additional issue that is necessary to study in order to fulfil academic gap in the past and address empirical problems to find casual factors of policy implementation for encouraging the integrated collaborations among sectors or organizations associated with driving tourism policy implementation of Thailand. Furthermore, the model that was fulfilled academic gap is a solution for enhancing the achievement ratio of driving policy implementation as mentioned.

In conclusion, this research emphasizes on identifying causal factors of integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism development that elements are considered by concepts and theories of policy implementation as well as developing the model mixed by the concept of psycho-behavioral science in order to fulfil academic gaps and increasing an opportunity in the achievement for driving tourism development plan or tourism policy implementation by causal factors that contain academic completeness.

(31)

1.3 Research Question

1.3.1 What are the causal factors affecting integrated policy implementation of tourism in Thailand.?

1.3.2 Which patterns are the structural model between causal factors and integrated policy implementation of tourism in Thailand.?

1.3.3 Which attributes should be policy implication of causal factors affecting integrated policy implementation in tourism in Thailand?

1.4 Research Objective

1.4.1 To study the causal factors affecting integrated policy implementation of tourism in Thailand.

1.4.2 To develop the structural model between causal factors and integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand.

1.4.3 To provide policy implication of causal factors affecting integrated policy implementation in tourism in Thailand.

1.5 Benefits Received from Research

1.5.1 Academic Benefits

1) The group of university instructors in the field of policy and the tourism management has gained the benefits in the educational dimensions from the research findings about causal factors of policy implementation in terms of the context of tourism. To instruct and train university students, it was the case studies that which causal factors have an impact on the integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand.

2) The group of academicians in the policy implementation and the tourism management has gained the benefits in the research dimensions from the research findings that fulfilled the knowledge of policy implementation derived from models of integrated policy implementation which were developed by the process of structural equation analysis.

(32)

3) The group of university students or other people who were interested in studying in the issues of the policy implementation and the tourism management has gained the benefits in the research dimensions in terms of guidelines for applying concepts and theories. Additionally, the causal factors and models were developed to apply in the study and research of policy implementation in areas or other contexts in the future.

1.5.2 Management Benefits

1) The group of policy makers or senior executives has gained the benefits of research in the dimensions of administration and political science. These benefits were derived from utilizing information as a policy direction of public sector about increasing capabilities in the encouragement of integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand to increase the achievement of implementation.

2) The group of middle management and implementors in major sectors, especially in Ministry of Tourism and Sports has gained benefits in the dimensions of organizational management. These benefits were derived from utilizing information as a direction for support and promotion or adjusting the management factors that affected on the integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand for leading to the increasing achievement of the national tourism development plan.

1.6 Scope of Research

1.6.1 Content

According to this research, it has emphasized on the examination about causal factors that have influenced on the integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand depended on the theories of policy implementation and theories of psycho-behavioural science such as theory of planned behaviour and the concept of integration from academic gap of policy implementation in the previous studies. In addition, these were combined with the occurred problems of policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand. Then, the research guidelines was conducted by

(33)

the implementors in the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021). This was a large strategic plan in the policy of tourism in Thailand for seeking a direction that could handle factors which affected on the integrated policy implementation in the context of tourism in Thailand.

1.6.2 Area………

This research defined analysis areas from the empirical findings of implementing policy in the tourism in Thailand since the past until the present in the first national tourism development plan (2012-2016). In the results of implementation and the results of related researches, it was known that many provinces in Thailand, especially in Phuket, Ranong, Trat, ChiangRai, Sukhothai, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Surat Thani, Phangnga, Bangkok and other provinces suffered the problems of unsuccessful policy implementation as expected because the integration did not take place in the most area (Chanapol Techvitul, 2016, 2017; Chawadee Koson, 2011;

Duangta Promraksa, 2015; Napaporn Janchai, 2015; Oratai Krutwaysho, 2006;

Piyawan Kongprasert, 2008; Praedau Foopanichpruk, 2016, 2017, 2018; Prapussorn Yotaruk, 2014; Rawipa Homsettee, 1998; Sarochar Phraepasa, 2014; Vinai Pooprachatrakool, 2006). These were combined with this research that has a research direction for implementors in the second national tourism development plan (2017- 2021). This was a large strategic plan in the policy of tourism that was driven by public sectors throughout Thailand. Therefore, it was defined analysis areas as public sectors in Thailand that are responsible to drive plan, action plan, or project which was adapted from the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021) and the policy of tourism in Thailand.

1.6.3 Population

This study is research about the causal factors and the development of integrated policy implementation model through populations. These populations were a person or officer under public sectors that related in operational and executive levels. Additionally, they were responsible to handle the tourism sector in Thailand, respond and perform based on plan, action plan, or project which was adapted from

(34)

the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021) and the policy of tourism in Thailand into the implementation by including these people.

Individuals or officials of public sectors and state enterprises related in operational and executive levels in the main responsible department, especially in Ministry of Tourism and Sports was responsible to cooperate with other supportive sectors in operational level. In addition, this person or officer was a supporter of development in local level by determining roles in the development and direction to drive the action plan/planned project such as promotion, support and convenience in the implementation efficiently.

Individuals or officials under public sectors related in operational and executive levels in the supportive departments including Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of National Resources and Environment, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand Convention & Exhibition Bureau (Public Organization), Designated Areas for Sustainable Tourism Administration (Public Organization), Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thailand Tourist Police, Royal Thai Police, Ministry of Labor and Department of Local Administration.

Individuals or officials under public sectors related in operational and executive levels in regional level, especially in provincial tourism and sports office as a provincial administration was a main coordinating sector between provincial administration office and provincial tourism development committee. Additionally, this person or officer was responsible to create the implementation plan in tourism management in provincial areas/tourism development zone in the provincial development section. Moreover, provincial tourism and sports offices were responsible to support in planning and implementing of provincial group administration committee and integrated provincial group administration committee that were related in the tourism in Thailand.

Individuals or officials under public sectors related in operational and executive levels in local level, especially in Department of Local Administration. As mentioned earlier, all of these people and officers under public sectors are required to be practitioners, treatment delivers or implementors of tourism management based on

(35)

the direction of driving the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021), plan, action plan, or project which was adapted from the second national tourism development plan (2017-2021) and the policy of tourism in Thailand into the implementation.

1.7 Terminology

1) Tourism administration and development mean managing, developing and adjusting of tourist attractions, tourism management, maintaining the quality of tourist attractions, managing tourism activities, tourism development, human resource development in tourism, managing and distributing tourism knowledge, managing tourism products, maintaining tourism security or any other activities related to tourist attractions, tourists and tourism industry. These must consider the tourism principle for all populations as well as for reducing inequality and creating fairness in society directly and indirectly. These supports generated the sustainable tourism (Government Gazette, 2019).

2) Government sectors mean ministries, departments or other government agencies that were called other names as a provincial department, department of local administration, state enterprise, public organization or other public sectors that have operated about the tourism sector in Thailand (Government Gazette, 2019).

3) Department of Local Administration means provincial administration organization, sub-district administration organization, Bangkok, Pattaya and other local government organizations that have been established by laws (Government Gazette, 2019).

4) Province means Bangkok and Pattaya city (Government Gazette, 2019).

5) Policy implementation means the driving implementation of Implementor by working behaviors, operational procedures, and the operations of an individual, group, or any organizations of public and private sectors based on the implementation plan and facilitated factors in order to reach the objectives of policy or defined strategic plan that leads the benefits to the population of the country. (Akom Chaikeaw, 1990; Bardach, 1977; S. Barrett & Fudge, 1981; Kitti Boonnark, 1993; Kla Tongkow, 1991; Mayuree Anumanrajadhon, 2013; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984;

(36)

Ruengwit Ketsuwan, 2008; Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, 2017; Tongbai Sudcharee, 1992; Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975; Voradej Chandarasorn, 1990).

6) Competence of policies means a feature of policy capability to push people to be able to create a driving policy implementation in their own responsible projects higher or beyond the criteria/purposes of defined policy. Then, it can be measured by solving-problem ability of policy, policy capability in determining operational structure, clear objectives and purposes of policy, policies that are supported by appropriate theories, policies that are consistent with the requirements of target group, consistence with central policy and other related policies, policies that is consistent with the reality, policies that contain an indicator and the clear standards of achievement (Alexander, 1982; Attewell & Gerstein, 1979; Goggin, Bowman, Lester,

& O'Toole Jr, 1990; Kitti Boonnark, 1993; Orrawan Kummak, 2011; Pisan Banchusuwan, 2015; Pradtana Yossuk & Pongsakorn Kawichai, 2017; Sabatier &

Mazmanian, 1979, 1980; Theppasak Boonyarataphan, 1993; Tongbai Sudcharee, 1992; Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975).

7) Resources for policies means a thing that the organizations holds and has limited possession. Then, people need to utilize these things for generating the highest benefits to the policy implementation or driving policy implementation based on organizations’ receiving successfully. Therefore, it can be measured by financial resources such as expenditure as well as physical resources including materials, equipment, machines, technologies and locations and human resources such as workforces and so on. Then, those holding things are required a sufficiency, suitability and distribution to the organizations for operating thoroughly (Berman et al., 1977; Duangta Promraksa, 2015; Kitti Boonnark, 1993; Pisan Banchusuwan, 2015; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1979, 1980; Tongbai Sudcharee, 1992; Van Meter &

Van Horn, 1975; Voradej Chandarasorn, 2011).

8) Environment of policies means a thing surrounding individuals, groups or organizations in terms of living and non-living. Additionally, it is considered as tangible thing as concrete object and intangible thing as abstract object in order to facilitate individuals or organizations to drive the operations efficiently or interrupt the failures. Then, it comprises of the effects from economic, social, political and technological conditions, the effects from resistance and objection to the policies from