1

Collaboration Theory Applied to

Tourism Policy-Making.

An Examination of a Case Study in

Sayulita, Mexico

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Doctoral

Comprehensive Examinations

By

Raul Pacheco-Vega

Ph.D. program

Resource Management and Environmental Studies

Vancouver, B.C. May 18, 2001

2

Introduction

Tourism can be seen as an activity that involves the use of natural resources

within a specific geographical zone. While tourism is viewed primarily as a leisure

activity, hotel developers and service-providers (aimed at specific target groups) are

interested in making money through touristic activities. However, many times these

developments are located in communities that are affected; at times negatively,

sometimes positively. Any situation where there is use (or misuse) or exploitation of

natural resources, and where those resources are shared by different stakeholders is

almost certain to provoke conflict. Interconnectedness is just one reason why people

who share the same resources often collide. There are many others, such as opposed

views on the same issues, confrontational attitudes and the use of adversarial strategies

to achieve self-interested goals.

Tourism is a booming industry all over the world. It has been touted as "the

fastest growing industry in the world"

1

. As a result of this growth, appropriate

management of the resources affected by the tourism industry becomes an increasingly

complex task. An overwhelming quantity of stakeholders (many of them "invisible" or

"diffused"), significant fragmentation of the industry and inevitable dependence on

resources available in tourist destinations are just a few factors that add to the

complexity. For this industry to survive and thrive, a change of paradigms is deemed the

most appropriate response. It has been suggested that ecotourism may be one approach

to sustainable tourism that might help overcome these complexities and address

problems of sustainable management of resources within the tourism domain. Planned

well, ecotourism may benefit host communities through the adoption of sustainable

3

resource management practices. It also has the potential to help tackle the eternal

conflict of economic growth to the expense of environmental deterioration, through the

establishment of linkages between societal needs and protection of ecosystems. This

paper, however, is not concerned with ecotourism as "the" approach to sustainable

tourism. Instead of investigating the concept of ecotourism, I use three dimensions of

the sustainability paradigm (economic, social and environmental goals) as an

overarching frame of reference to address the need for citizen participation in tourism

planning and policy-making. Citizen participation in environmental decision-making

has been quoted as one of the pre-requisites for a sustainable development. It is, in fact,

embedded in the Agenda 21 text as one of the 27 principles for sustainable

development. However, this societal intervention often is not significant and members

of the community are relegated to a non-participant, irrelevant role in governmental

decisions that will deeply affect their lifestyle. Issues of inequity, power imbalances and

social injustice arise if citizen participation is not meaningful. This is the case in many

policy arenas, and tourism policy-making is not the exception.

The challenge tackled in this paper is how to address these issues from a

progressive planning perspective. Progressive planning is a new planning paradigm that

attempts to bring together theories of collaboration for sustainable development and

theories of communicative action, in a concerted effort to address power imbalances

that arise from a decline in community participation in policy-making. These challenges

of power imbalances are most noticeable in the context of a developing country, where

historically citizens have not had a say in governmental decisions that deeply affect

their lives. In this paper, I develop a conceptual and an analytical framework to analyse

a hypothetical case of tourism development in a Mexican coastal zone. I am mostly

1

 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tourism/tourism.html

4

interested in issues that arise during implementation of a multiple stakeholder,

roundtable initiative, sponsored by a coalition of disadvantaged people.

In analysing the conflicts that arise from this common pool resource situation, I

draw on literature from the collaboration theory realm (works by Barbara Gray, Patsy

Healey and Tony Dorcey among others). This body of knowledge addresses situations

where conflict arises and explains under which conditions collaboration best occurs. I

also draw on Forester's ideas of power imbalances and progressive approaches to

planning. I justify my choice of Forester and the related literature by arguing that these

writings speak to the need to correct information distortions and power inequities. For

disadvantaged stakeholders to be empowered, power imbalances need to be corrected.

Forester's ideas speak to the notions of asymmetric distribution of power. Therefore, his

concepts would provide insights on how to correct these distortions. I have added a third

component to my theoretical framework, which explicitly addresses the notion of

adaptive cycles. I also address the notion of "diffused" stakeholders within the paper.

For the analytical framework, I draw on Gray (1989) and Gray and Wood's

collaboration theory (Gray and Wood 1991). I also looked for specific criteria to

evaluate how collaboration may be best achieved in the domain of "shared decision-

making" literature (Duffy et al 1998). I make use of these concepts because tourism is

an industry that strongly affects communities where touristic activities take place. As a

result, shared-decision making seems to be necessary in order to reduce the negativity of

these impacts. The analytical framework presented is different, however, of Duffy's.

It is necessary to remember that evaluation of multistakeholder processes

(MSPs) has traditionally posed enormous challenges to theorists and practitioners. It is

not my aim to provide a new framework to evaluate the effectiveness of a MSP. My

purpose is to use an iterative approach to investigate what key factors can be put

5

forward that can help make a MSP work, with a special emphasis on implementation.

This iterative approach will examine what criteria have been discussed regarding MSP

effectiveness and from those criteria, I examine what factors may lead to achieving a

high score in the chosen criteria. Then, I provide reflective arguments on design and

implementation strategies through the examination of a case study.

The paper is distributed as follows: I begin with a brief discussion of the tourism

industry and its relevance to developing countries. I then outline the need for

collaboration amongst relevant stakeholders in the tourism industry. This serves as a

prelude to introduce my conceptual and theoretical framework. I then introduce the

components of my analytical framework. These conceptual and analytical frameworks

are then used to analyse a hypothetical case study of tourism development planning in a

coastal zone in Mexico. Gray (1989) identifies three main stages in collaborative

initiatives: problem definition, direction setting and implementation. I am most

interested in the implementation stage. As a result, I identify key issues to be addressed

at the implementation level by the sponsor of the collaborative process and by other

relevant stakeholders. Finally, I conclude with a view to the future of this theoretical

realm.

Tourism, resource management and collaboration

Tourism development is peculiar in many ways. While it may be viewed from a

business perspective as a profitable venture (often entrepreneurs), many others envision

it as a source of income and survival (residents of the zone). Furthermore, government

officials and policymakers also face a challenge in reconciling common pool resource

management with the need for a sustainable development. Therefore, for tourism to

flourish it is necessary that all stakeholders collaborate towards such shared goal

(sustainable growth). Collaboration amongst stakeholders in any industry often is seen

6

as an unattainable goal. However, cooperation in natural resource management is

needed if humankind is to thrive and survive. A basic assumption throughout this paper

is that stakeholders in a policy issue should and can intervene in policy design and

implementation. This basic assumption underlies the analysis presented in this paper.

While opposing viewpoints and arguments may be found in the literature, my analysis

will follow a stream of thought based on the premise that collaboration is possible,

under certain specific circumstances.

It would seem unlikely that individuals who want to realise personal gains and

make use of shared resources would cooperate to avoid overexploitation of these

resources. Garret Hardin (1968) cautioned about the "tragedy of the commons" that

could occur when common-pool resources were being consumed by numerous parties.

Hardin indicated that it would be likely that overconsumption would lead to exhaustion

of shared resources. Therefore, the cooperation of self-interested individuals to manage

their common-pool resources in a sustainable manner was not deemed likely. However,

a large body of literature on common-pool resource management has addressed this

issue both at the theoretical and empirical level, finding that collaboration and

cooperation to solve conflicts among stakeholders over the management of shared

natural resource is possible. Buckles and Rusnak (1999) indicate that conflict may be a

catalyst for positive social change. If appropriately managed, they argue, this change

would likely lead to a more sustainable management of resources, through the

recognition by all interested parties of the opportunities for equitable resource

distribution, adequate resource extraction and consumption and increased wellbeing of

all stakeholders. In this paper, I will examine collaboration for tourism resource

management and planning. I will address this notion in later sections of the paper. I now

turn to a brief examination of tourism, development and collaboration.

7

Tourism and development

Different researchers have analysed tourism activities in developing countries

through a varied number of theoretical lenses. Some have argued that increased revenue

from tourism leads to economic growth and therefore, societal wellbeing. Stonich

(1998) indicates that tourism had been recommended as a good strategy for economic

development for Honduras. During the 1980s, the government of Honduras pursued

aggressive advertising campaigns and marketing strategies in order to boost economic

performance at the national level. Other Latin American countries have shared this

approach to development

2

 and Mexico has not been the exception. Mexico is a very

important (if not the most important) tourist destination amongst Latin American

countries. Data from the World Tourism Organisation indicates that Mexico is ranked

seventh among the world's leading tourism destinations (WTO 1997, as cited in

Cothran, 1998). Amongst the countries in the Americas, Mexico held a comfortable

15.5% market share in international tourist arrivals in 1999, while raising $ 7,223

million US in international tourism receipts (WTO 2001). Clancy (1999), in an analysis

of tourism and development in Mexico, indicates that the industry is the second largest

employer in Mexico (only agriculture employs more people). Therefore, tourism is very

important in Mexico because of its potential and promise for economic growth, and the

Mexican government likely regards it as the most profitable industry of them all.

Cothran and Cothran (1998:479) argue that Cancun, Mexico, "ranks as the most

popular resort in the Western Hemisphere". Apparently, the prestige of Cancun outranks

many other popular beach resort destinations, such as Mazatlan, Puerto Vallarta and

Ixtapa. Paradoxically, Cothran and Cothran (1998) find that Mexico City attracts the

largest number of tourists, Cancun ranks second and Acapulco is in third place, while

8

Guadalajara is fourth. Both Mexico City and Guadalajara are inner-city destinations,

while Cancun and Acapulco are coastal-zone destinations. This seems like a paradox,

because traditionally, Mexican tourist destinations have been the coastal zone

destinations such as Cancun and Acapulco (the beaches in Mexico are considered

amongst the most beautiful and pristine in the world) while both Mexico City and

Guadalajara are inner-city destionations. Mexico City and Guadalajara's status as the

two bigger cities in Mexico may be a factor that foreign tourists take into account when

choosing their travel destination. It can be thus argued that the potential that the tourism

industry shows to boost economic performance in Mexico is very high, and therefore, it

is an industry that is most relevant for the Mexican government. However, with this

increased attractiveness comes the downside. Congestion, increased traffic and noise

pollution are just a few of the negative impacts of increased tourist travel to these

coastal zone destinations. Also, because many resorts are located within a reasonably

short distance of host communities, the livelihood of these communities is also

impacted. Not to be overlooked, as the number of resorts being built increasees to

satisfy the constantly increasing demand from foreign and domestic visitors to these

destinations, so does the impact on the natural resources of the area where these

developments take place. Ecotourism notwithstanding, increased tourist traffic most

likely leads to some negative environmental effects and could potentially contribute to

societal unrest and mobilisation. Therefore, a perfect opportunity presents itself for

collaboration to occur. Gray (1989:10), in her seminal works outlines several

characteristics of a problem that could potentially be suitable for collaboration

3

:

****

The problems are ill defined, or there is disagreement about how they should

be defined.

2

 All of Latin America, Mexico included, has been categorised in the development literature as

"developing" or "the South".

3

 I quote all these characteristics as Gray indicates them. However, they may be clustered in different

criteria which I present in my analysis.

9

****

Several stakeholders have a vested interest in the problems and are

interdependent.

****

These stakeholders are not necessarily identified a priori or organized in any

systematic way.

****

There may be a disparity of power and/or resources for dealing with the

problems among the stakeholders.

****

Stakeholders may have different levels of expertise and different access to

information about the problems.

****

Technical complexity and scientific uncertainty often characterize the

problems.

****

Differing perspectives on the problems often lead to adversarial relationships

among the stakeholders.

****

Incremental or unilateral efforts to deal with the problems typically produce

less than satisfactory solutions.

****

Existing processes for addressing the problems have proved insufficient and

may even exacerbate them.

The tourism industry problems with sustainability share many of these

characteristics. I will examine them through the theoretical lenses of my conceptual

framework.

Conceptual and theoretical framework

My conceptual (theoretical) framework encompasses three components. The

building block that I use to explore collaboration for tourism policy making is the work

on collaboration theory explored by Gray (1989). Collaboration is defined by Gray as "a

process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively

explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited view

of what is possible" (Gray 1989:5). The case study examined in this paper seems clearly

well suited for the use of collaboration theory. Applications of Gray's work into the

tourism planning and policy-making have been explored by a number of researchers

(Jamal and Getz 1995; Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Jamal and Getz 1999; Parker

1999; Reed 1999)

10

At the theoretical level, the most thorough examination of collaboration theory

applied to tourism is the work of Jamal and Getz (1995) and Bramwell and Sharman

(1999). Jamal and Getz (1995) develop a set of six propositions, based on a literature

review and using Gray's collaboration theory as a stepping stone. These propositions are

intended as prescriptive measures or a "how-to" guide to implement collaboration for

community-based tourism planning. These propositions include:

1.  The recognition of a high degree of interdependence.

2.  The recognition of individual and/or mutual benefits of collaboration.

3.  A widely held belief that decisions will be binding and implemented (i.e.

the process is legitimate and powerful enough to influence planning

decisions).

4.  The assurance of inclusiveness (i.e. making sure that all stakeholder

groups are included)

5.  There should be a convener to initiate and facilitate this collaboration.

6.  An effective process requires ongoing support and cooperation by all

parties involved (including governmental bodies).

More than building an explanatory framework, Jamal and Getz aim to identify

prescriptive measures and guidelines for managers and planners. However, the

recognition of issues that are of utmost relevance to planners for the design and

implementation of successful, collaborative initiatives is very important. Once

established, the above-mentioned guidelines could be used to build a checklist or a set

of criteria to help evaluate whether the process has been successful and effective. This

criteria could then be coupled with other frameworks available in the literature.

Bramwell and Sharman (1999) introduce an analytical framework to assess

collaborative initiatives. Two main criteria are highlighted in their framework:

inclusiveness and collective learning. A third relevant criteria for them, is the reduction

of power imbalances between stakeholders. Their analytical framework is comprised of

three sets of issues: the scope of collaboration, the intensity of collaboration and the

degree to which consensus is reached. They build the notion of "partial consensus" as a

11

tool to advance the notion that complete consensus (i.e. everyone agrees on an issue) is

sometimes impossible to achieve and therefore a "partial consensus" should be reached.

Although it is a very interesting framework, Bramwell and Sharman fail to address what

happens if a stakeholder does not have the power/resources to intervene in the

collaborative process. That is, intensity of collaboration and scope of collaboration are

irrelevant if an important stakeholder group does not have the power or resources to

participate in the collaboration process. If, for instance, a group exclusive control over

the decision to be reached and the level to which such decision is implemented,

collaboration efforts will likely be useless and a waste of effort.

Gray identifies three stages for a collaborative process: problem setting,

direction setting and implementation. There are different stages according to a number

of authors, but I will follow Gray's three stage model for simplicity purposes. As in any

interorganizational collaboration, different authors suggest similar process.. Table 1

(extracted from Pacheco-Vega, 1998, p.8) outlines the variety of models available in the

literature. I have included Gray's three stages model (not originally in the table).

Authors

Number of Stages

Summary of the Model

Lorange, Roos and Bron

(1992)

2

1.  Initial analytical phase.

2.  Intensive phase.

Forrest (1992)

3

1.  Pre-alliance stage.

2.  Alliance agreement

development stage.

3.  Implementation stage.

Gray (1989)

3

1.  Problem setting

2.  Direction setting

3.  Implementation

Bronder and Pritzl (1992)

4

1.  Strategic decision.

2.  Configuration of the alliance.

3.  Partner selection.

4.  Management of the alliance

Baughn et al (1997)

4

1.  Prior assessments.

2.  Bargaining stage.

3.  Management

4.  Monitoring of evolution.

Table 1. Stages in Collaborative Alliances 

(Source: Pacheco-Vega 1998 and from

Gray 1989)

12

Briefly, 

problem setting

 implies the definition of the 

scope

 and 

areas

 for

collaboration. It also attempts  to identify 

WHO 

is to participate (stakeholder

identification) and 

HOW 

 this participation is going to take place. 

Direction setting

 is

the stage when agendas are built, interests are explored, options are created, and

agreement on these options is sought. In other words, 

direction setting

identifies

WHAT

 is to be implemented and 

BY WHOM

. 

Implementation

 of the proposed

actions established in the direction setting stage requires establishing links with

constituencies and structuring methods and ways in which compliance with the

agreement may be sought, monitored and ensured. This stage identifies, 

WHEN

  the

agreement is to be implemented and 

WHY

. Also extremely important in this last stage;

WHO

 is to take 

WHAT

 role. .

Given that collaboration involves building a common understanding of the

problems or issues at stake, Habermas' notions of discourse and communicative action

fit perfectly within this literature domain. I use progressive planning and

communicative action theory as proposed by Forester (1989). It is through dialogue that

a common ground can be reached, and the Habermasian notion of "perfect speech"

provides avenues and ways to constructively find common interests (those interests that

lie behind the positions that each party brings to the table).

The second component of my framework utilises the theoretical lenses of

Forester's concept of progressive planning. Forester draws most of his theory from the

German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who developed the notion of

"perfect speech" and communicative action. Habermas argued that it is through

"deliberative democracy" that citizens can engage in a realistic and meaningful dialogue

with policy-makers. This deliberation is achieved through two-way communication and

information sharing. If this situation of "perfect speech" is attained, (in theory) the

13

decision reached through shared decision-making should be not only sustainable but

also legitimate and accountable. Most interpretations of Habermasian theory agree that

through a reasoned dialogue amongst all the diverse parties in the public sphere will

lead to reaching a shared understanding of the problem, likely increasing the chances

that a common solution for all parties will be established

Forester (1989) argues that the progressive planner's role is to correct

information distortions and power imbalances through appropriate mechanisms to

empower citizens. The progressive planner is able to recognise that:

political-economic power may function systematically to misinform affected

publics... the progressive view anticipates such regular, structurally rooted

misinformation and organises information to counteract this `noise' (Forester,

1989:31)

Forester's ideas can be applied through a careful analysis of sources of

misinformation during the collaborative process. In each of the three stages of a

collaboration process we can identify sources of misinformation. Once these sources are

identified, a progressive planner may be able to correct information distortions and

empower disenfranchised citizens, thus giving them the opportunity to have their voices

heard.  To analyse sources of possible mismanagement of information, Forester outlines

a framework through which each particular situation may be viewed [Forester, 1989

#18:38-39, Tables 2 and 3]. The four main sources of mismanagement of information

outlined are:

! 

Managing comprehension (problem framing)

! 

Managing trust (false assurance)

! 

Managing consent (illegitimacy)

! 

Managing knowledge (misrepresentation)

14

The above-mentioned sources of mismanagement of information provide a

starting point to identify manners and ways in which a progressive planner can correct

these information distortions and realign power imbalances. A carefully designed policy

for the  stakeholder selection processes should take into account these possible sources

of information mismanagement. By tackling these information distortions, progressive

planners should be able to design a process that is accountable, legitimate and fair. As

Dorcey and McDaniels (2001) indicate, a progressive planner is able to empower

citizens through "deliberative democracy".

The third building block of my framework builds on my previous research work.

The notion of adaptive management in tourism has been examined by several authors

(Hunter 1997; Reed 1999), yet no one has explicitly addressed interorganizational

collaboration as the result of iterative cycles of adaptation. In Pacheco-Vega (1998), I

examined asymmetric strategic alliances in the biotechnology industry. I argued that

these alliances were deemed to fail if the weaker firm didn't perform due diligence and

examine the potential sources of its own weakness. I proposed a theoretical model for

the implementation of strategic alliances between pharmaceutical companies and

biotechnology firms. This model explicitly considered this evaluation and

implementation process as an iterative, adaptive cycle. This notion of adaptive cycles

forms the third block of my theoretical framework. I argue that in order for a

collaborative process to be properly implemented, careful evaluation of the results

should be performed and adaptive adjustments should be continuously implemented.

This learning process is a common feature of adaptive management strategies.

Reed (1999) argues that collaborative tourism planning can be considered as an

adaptive experiment, and that adaptive management could be used as a framework for

learning and improving policy decisions in the tourism domain. However, Reed's

15

analysis falls short of realising its full potential, as she does not explicitly test adaptive

management as an overarching strategy for collaborative tourism planning. She

illustrates potential ways of applying adaptive management, yet she does not test her

model (and she makes that explicit in her writing). Hunter (1997:864) examined the role

of sustainable tourism as "an 

adaptive

 paradigm capable of addressing widely different

situations, and articulating different goals in the utilization of natural resources"

(emphasis in the original". However, he does not explicitly address how this learning

process occurs, nor the conditions/level of collaboration necessary  for this learning

process to occur. In this paper, I will examine the role of adaptive cycles to improve

outcomes of collaborative processes.

Analytical framework

My analytical framework arises from the application of the concepts outlined in

the theoretical framework to the design of criteria that could be used to evaluate

implementation efforts. The analytical framework unfolds in three components. The set

of criteria shown arises from an in-depth analysis of Gray's theoretical requirements for

a problem to be ripe for collaboration. Which indicators can we use to identify this

"ripeness"? I propose three sets of indicators (see Table 2).

16

Criterion

Indicator

Guiding Questions

Perceived 

illegitimacy

****

Unilateral decision-

making

****

Power disparities

****

Who convenes the

process? Who decides?

****

Who holds more power?

Who loses more as a

result of the decision?

Perceived 

complexity

****

Ill-defined problems

****

Scientific and technical

complexity and

uncertainty

****

Diverse and uneven levels

of knowledge and

expertise

****

What is the issue at hand?

****

How can we narrow the

problem? What is the real

issue?

****

Who knows about the

issue? What resources

does he/she bring to the

table?

Perceived 

conflict

****

Adversarial relationships

****

Diverse interests

****

Conflicting positions

****

Who is against whom?

Why?

****

What does each

stakeholder want and

why?

****

What are the interests that

lie behind positions?

Table 2. Baseline Criteria Used to Examine Collaborative Processes in Tourism

By answering the indicated guiding questions, it is possible to identify whether

the problem is ripe for collaboration. The above shown framework also helps identify

WHO 

is to participate and 

HOW 

 he/she will participate. It also identifies 

WHAT

 is to

be implemented and 

BY WHOM

. Although not explicitly included in the above-

mentioned indicators, the questions of 

WHEN

 is the agreement to be implemented and

WHY 

are also relevant.

An additional criterion that should be used to supplement those shown in Table 2

arises as a result of the peculiarities of the tourism industry. In this industry, the main

target (or client) is the tourist. The mere reason why tourism exists and why tourist

destinations are created is because of the tourist. However, in the collaborative tourism

literature, the role of tourists is often neglected. Most of the literature analysed indicates

17

that all relevant stakeholders should be included in all stages of the collaboration

process (Keogh 1990; Jamal and Getz 1995; Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Jamal and

Getz 1999; Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell 1999; Parker 1999; Reed 1999; Reed

1999; Ritchie 1999; Sautter and Leisen 1999). However, no author makes explicit the

role of the tourist nor do they provide any guidance as to how to involve the tourist in

the multistakeholder, collaborative process.

A possible explanation for this apparent oversight lies in the concept of

"diffused" or "invisible" stakeholders. I coined this notion of "invisible" stakeholders

because the nature of the tourist activity does not allow him/her to participate in these

processes in a conventional way. Whereas constituencies such as environmental non-

governmental organisations (ENGOs), disadvantaged groups, the host community

and/or the government are stakeholders or participants that are always present in the

destination (geographically speaking), the tourist travels to the destination and leaves

within a very short period of time. Therefore, even though a tourist may have a stake in

the tourism development process, there is no way one can identify 

one

 single type of

tourist. Tourists come from all parts of the world, have completely different worldviews

and interests, and the time they spend at the tourism destination is minimal. That is why

they are "invisible" or "diffuse". Therefore, it is important to recognise that stakeholder

participation in policy-making is dependent on the interest that such stakeholder has on

the process and the extent to which that stakeholder or stakeholder group is able to

participate. Visitors are diffuse stakeholders because they change by the

hour/minute/week.  One possible way to overcome this issue is to look for stakeholder

input from tourists through focus groups or surveys, according to the specific market

niche being targeted. For instance, for ecotourism destination planning, it would be

advisable to survey ecotourists in other regions and catalyse their input in the

18

roundtable. Therefore, an additional criterion would be the 

perceived

salience

. 

That is,

who is relevant and why? The guiding questions would be: Who holds a stake in the

issue? Who is relevant to be considered?

Criterion

Indicator

Guiding Questions

Perceived 

illegitimacy

****

Unilateral decision-

making

****

Power disparities

****

Who convenes the

process? Who decides?

****

Who holds more power?

Who loses more as a

result of the decision?

Perceived 

salience

****

Diffuse stakeholding

****

Who should participate

and why?

****

What is his/her stake in

the issue at hand?

Perceived 

complexity

****

Ill-defined problems

****

Scientific and technical

complexity and

uncertainty

****

Diverse and uneven levels

of knowledge and

expertise

****

What is the issue at hand?

****

How can we narrow the

problem? What is the real

issue?

****

Who knows about the

issue? What resources

does he/she bring to the

table?

Perceived 

conflict

****

Adversarial relationships

****

Diverse interests

****

Conflicting positions

****

Who is against whom?

Why?

****

What does each

stakeholder want and

why?

****

What are the interests that

lie behind positions?

Table 3. Expanded Criteria Used to Examine Collaborative Processes in Tourism

These are proposed criteria that are open for discussion. I pose them here to

analyse the case study at hand. The value of these criteria lies in identifying 

what not to

do 

throughout the three stages of collaboration, and most importantly, during

implementation.

19

A hypothetical case study of coastal zone tourism development

in Mexico

Sayulita, a municipality of 1,370 inhabitants in the southeastern part of Mexico,

is a very beautiful and pristine area. Located about 20 kilometres  northeast of Puerto

Vallarta (a major tourist destination in Mexico), Sayulita enjoys the same warm and

comfortable weather as Puerto Vallarta, without the inconveniences of a continuous

stream of tourists (mainly Canadian, European and American citizens). Sayulita is

located about three kilometres off the shoreline and as a result, the beach was named by

the residents "Sayulita Beach". This was the reflection of the sense of ownership felt by

the residents of Sayulita. Until recently, this area was considered one of the most

beautiful non-explored regions in the Mexican coastal zones.  The water is clear and the

quality of the sand is superb. The local community bases its economic development on

two major activities: shrimp fishing and services to Puerto Vallarta. Approximately

32% of the community's workforce devotes most of their time to fishing activities while

49% travels every day to Puerto Vallarta to work in restaurants, hotels and tour

operations. The remainder is scattered among a number of activities. Traditionally,

Sayulita had enjoyed relative quietness and had been successful in avoiding tourist

overflows. Occasionally, a few tourists would show up, with little disturbance of the

community's day to day activities.

In the last few years, however, there has been a steady change in the Sayulita

community. Puerto Vallarta seems to have exhausted its carrying capacity for tourists

and more often, visitors have started to spread out and visit other destinations along the

same shoreline (the State of Jalisco coast). As a result, Sayulita has slowly started to

become a tourist destination that caters to the roaming tourist. Tired of the Puerto

Vallarta scene, the new tourist has recognised in Sayulita the opportunity to find

20

relaxation and solitude while enjoying the warm weather and the sunny, clean beach.

Thus, Sayulita's inflow of tourists has steadily increased from a few hundred in 1992 to

about 25 000 in 1999. The municipal government sees this as an opportunity to boost

economic performance, job creation and increased revenue. However, many residents

have voiced their concern that this increase in tourist flow may be detrimental for the

community livelihood. Pedro Gonzalez, from the Union de Ciudadanos Preocupados de

Sayulita (Union of Concerned Citizens of Sayulita, UCPS) said in an interview with the

local newspaper in September of 1999:

My only concern is that we don't want to become Puerto Vallarta, the

Sayulita Branch. I can only see our beach being damaged by the

irresponsibility and careless attitude of these "

gringos

". All they want is

to come, enjoy the sun, have a few beers and get a tan. I am worried that

they will leave their bottles on the sand, or break them causing a potential

damage to people who walk on the sand without any sandals. What about

our houses? If the government wants to bring more tourists in, it needs to

build new hotels, or at least hostels. Tourists won't want to backpack, and

I don't want them camping on the beach. Also, what would happen to our

beautiful forest? I just don't want them (the tourists) to come here. They

can stay in Puerto Vallarta.

Other members of the community also shared this concern. They feared that, if

tourism flourished as the main industry in Sayulita, shrimp fishing would not be as

productive as it used to be. Concerned members voiced fears of change and angst over

possible ecological damages to the coastal zone. They were also preoccupied with the

lack of infrastructure for tourist activities in Sayulita. If tourist destination developers

were to build new facilities to accommodate tourist requirements, they would surely

need to ask residents to move and the government would likely expropriate their land.

Even though Sayulita has the potential to be an emerging tourist destination, many

residents and stakeholder groups are concerned with the ecological and societal impacts

of these new developments.

21

In May 2000, a group of investors headed by Mr. Luis Perez of Show-Me-The-

Money, Inc., a tourist destination development firm based in Boston, MA, USA, visited

the office of the Municipal President, Mr. Dario Villa. They told Mr. Villa that they

were interested in developing a new hotel within a few metres of the shore, and very

close to downtown Sayulita. This development, Mr. Perez argued, would bring

economic spillovers and boost Sayulita's image as an emerging tourist destination. He

also emphasised that, given the town's dependence of shrimp fishing, it would be in the

best interest of the community to switch economic activities and start working in the

hotel industry. Mr. Villa was quite surprised that anyone would want to build new

hotels in the Sayulita area, mostly because he felt that the town was better off without

any new buildings. After all, they had been able to cope with the increased flow of

tourists in the last few years, hadn't they? He was also quite worried that Mr. Gonzalez

would oppose quite strongly. And the last thing Mr. Villa wanted in this, his last year as

Municipal President, was to engage in any sort of legal battle with the UCPS.

After a three-hour long lunch meeting (all costs on Mr. Perez' tab), Mr. Villa sat

down and thoughtfully meditated  on the options which were  available, and what he

could  do to deal with all the  relevant interests. While he was thinking about these

issues, a researcher from the Universidad del Mar (University of the Sea) asked Villa's

secretary to announce her arrival. Dr. Karla Garcia was a specialist in Tourism and

Hospitality Management and her research was focused on the ecological impacts of

tourism and sustainable tourism strategies. Dr. Garcia was looking for approval from

Mr. Villa to initiate a six month long study on the ecological impacts of tourism in

Sayulita. After hanging up from a short phone conversation with his assistant, Villa

pleasantly thought to himself :

"I have an opportunity to be involved in this study, which could help us

understand the ecological impacts of tourism. ) I will ask Dr. Garcia to

22

assess ecological damages and perform an environmental impact

assessment for the Show-Me-The-Money project. If everything goes

smoothly, and impacts are negligible, I might be able to convince

Gonzalez that this is actually a really good opportunity for Sayulita...

Hmmm, I need to keep my fingers crossed!"

Dr. Garcia sat down in Mr. Villa's office and gracefully thanked him for

taking the time to meet with her. "It's my pleasure, Dr. Garcia", Villa quipped. After a

brief introduction, Mr. Villa asked her directly "Dr. Garcia, would you be interested in

performing an environmental impact assessment of a proposed hotel development in

Sayulita? The Municipal government would be willing to pay for the study, and you

also could combine it with your own research. However, this matter is very urgent, so I

ask you to consider my offer and get back to me promptly". Dr. Garcia thought for five

minutes and responded "Ok, sounds like a good idea. However, I think that you might

be in a better position to tackle this complex issue if you convened a consultation

process. Have you ever heard of multistakeholder processes...?". Mr. Villa promptly

focused all his attention and listened. "Multi... what?", he thought. Dr. Garcia explained

to him that multistakeholder, round-table exercises were being used in Canada and the

US in order to craft policy so that citizens could voice their concerns and take a more

meaningful role in designing and implementing policies that would affect their lives.

These MSPs, as they were called, had many shades and there were a number of different

schemes that could be operationalised. She knew someone who might help design and

implement this process. She took her cell phone and rang her old friend, Mr. Rodrigo

Perales

4

. Mr. Perales was an expert in collaboration for natural resource management

and he happened to be about to take a vacation in Puerto Vallarta. After a quick

briefing, Mr. Perales was on his way to Sayulita. "What are the most pressing issues I

4

 In this short hypothetical story, no character is real. And of course, Rodrigo Perales is Raul Pacheco, in

reality. I thought this would be a good way to present the case study without making it blatantly clear that

I was embedded in the case study.

23

need to consider at the design and implementation stages?", he thought to himself. He

then turned to his briefcase and opened a book... "Planning in the Face of Power...

.hmmm, yeah I remember. Forester. He was so keen on power relations. Hmmm... I

guess I could use some collaboration theory... ok, now I really need to put my brain to

work". He quickly took the shuttle that left Puerto Vallarta and in less than 2 hours, he

was on his way to his first real challenge: how to design and implement a

multistakeholder process for tourism destination development in a coastal zone in

Mexico. This was going to be a real challenge....

Case Study Analysis

I applied the set of criteria outlined in Table 3 to the case of Sayulita. As it can

be seen, the convener/sponsor of the process is the government. This could (potentially)

lead stakeholder groups to perceive the process to be 

illegitimate

 if the Municipal

President fails to show that his decisions will be collectively designed and implemented

rather than being the result of unilateral decision-making.

The process was somewhat initiated by Mr. Gonzalez, from the coalition of

concerned citizens (most probably, disempowered citizens in a community as small as

Sayulita with a central municipal government that might have a lot of power). It might

be argued, however, that the coalition would gain power through participation in a

collaborative effort with the municipal authorities and other stakeholders. As a result of

his lobbying efforts and the interview, it seems likely that the Municipal President

would be interested in implementing a collaborative effort. Therefore, the overall score

for perceived illegitimacy might be low if the government decides by itself (which

might be unlikely). In all of these indicators, the goal is to achieve a low score in all

criteria.

24

A big problem in this case study is that tourists as stakeholder group are not

involved in the collaborative process. As the case study indicates, stakeholder

constituencies include academia, government, NGOs representing disadvantaged people

and representatives from the business sector. However, the tourist is not present

(therefore it is "invisible"), thus scoring high in perceived 

invisibility

.

Although the problem is rather complex (sustainable tourism), there are high

chances that the participation of all relevant stakeholders will likely lead to a shared

understanding of what is needed to develop the new hotel without exerting such a big

impact on the shrimp fishery. Therefore, the score for perceived 

complexity

 is medium,

although likely to be low if participants in the collaborative process take an opportunity

to bring forward their knowledge and expertise.

The case study presents a number of stakeholders with quite antagonistic

positions. Mr. Gonzalez seems to be very concerned with environmental issues and

quite eager to block any new hotel development through lobbying. Mr. Villa seems to

be very eager to please business interests and therefore, likely might gain himself a few

enemies and increase the chances that collaboration will not occur. Therefore, I assigned

a high score in the perceived 

conflict

 criterion. Table 4 summarises my analysis.

25

Criterion

Indicator

Case Study

Score

Perceived

illegitimacy

****

Unilateral

decision-

making

****

Power

disparities

****

Government

convenes the

process.

****

The coalition is

being empowered

****

High if the

government

decides

unilaterally

****

Low if

participation is

meaningful

Perceived

invisibility

****

Diffuse

stakeholding

****

Most relevant

groups are

involved

****

However, tourist

groups are not

included

****

High as the tourist

groups are

invisible

Perceived

complexity

****

Ill-defined

problems

****

Scientific and

technical

complexity

and

uncertainty

****

Diverse and

uneven levels

of knowledge

and expertise

****

The problem is

clearly identified

by all

constituencies

****

There is

complexity that

might be

overcome through

dialogue

****

Constructive

dialogue might

lead (potentially)

to a shared

understanding

****

Medium as there is

still a certain level

of complexity to

be addressed.

Perceived

conflict

****

Adversarial

relationships

****

Diverse

interests

****

Conflicting

positions

****

Likely NGOs vs

government and

NGOs vs business

****

Interests are

clearly defined by

each party and laid

out

****

High level of

conflict might be

expected unless a

third party helps

out

****

High as the case

study indicates

that some

stakeholders can

take a rather

confrontational

stance.

Table 4. Scores of the Case Study(Sayulita) in Expanded Criteria Used to Examine

Collaborative Processes in Tourism

It can be seen that these criteria provide a guiding framework of issues to take

into account in all three stages of collaboration processes. I have addressed in my

26

theoretical framework what is the role of a progressive planner in designing and

implementing a MSP. By providing information and correcting distortions and

communicative "noise", a progressive planner is able to correct power imbalances

within the tourism domain. For the analytical framework to work, the adaptive cycle

component of my framework should be taken into account. That is, after going through

the exercise of applying the analytical framework during all three stages of

collaboration (more importantly, during implementation), we should step back and

reflect. What can we do to improve the chances of achieving a low score in all four

criteria? What opportunities can we seize to provide constructive feedback to all the

different stakeholder groups in such a way that learning is fostered and stakeholder

dialogue is more oriented towards the Habermasian notion of "perfect speech"? These

are questions that the progressive planner in charge of implementing this MSP should

reflect upon and find opportunities to perform a catalytic role, thus leading to a more

sustainable tourism industry.

Epilogue

Mr. Perales sat down on his desk, exhausted after a long three-month period.

"Phew! I can't really believe I did survive this process. I thought they would kill me five

minutes into the round table meeting. However, they all seemed genuinely interested in

finding a solution to the basic common-pool resource dilemma they were facing. These

weeks of dialoguing, gathering data, sitting with them to revise options, finding what

they really wanted (not what they thought they wanted), providing feedback, I can't

really believe I did all of that! I just hope I can move forward soon. Only one thing

worries me... what am I going to do about those 'invisible stakeholders'? After all, I

can't reach them all. I need to identify a way to fill in the blanks. They should have a say

in this matter. And... how can I ensure that ecological damages will be minimal? Oh,

27

yes! I forgot... the results of the environmental impact assessment will be in tomorrow

morning. Dr. Garcia is a great fellow. I should seriously consider hiring her. Or was it

her who hired me? Whatever. I just hope that next time I am in Sayulita it will be as

pristine and beautiful as it is right now. Anyhow, we are working towards that shared

goal. And now... where were those evaluation forms?"

References

Bramwell, B. and A. Sharman (1999). "Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking."

Annals of Tourism Research 

26

(2): 392-415.

Buckles, D. and G. Rusnak (1999). Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource

Management. Cultivating Peace: Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource

Management. D. Buckles. Ottawa, ON, IDRC - World Bank

: 

1-10.

Clancy, M. J. (1999). "Tourism and Development. Evidence from Mexico." Annals of

Tourism Research 

26

(1): 1-20.

Cothran, D. A. and C. C. Cothran (1998). "Promise or Political Risk for Mexican

Tourism." Annals of Tourism Research 

25

(2): 477-497.

Dorcey, A. H. J. and T. McDaniels (2001). Great Expectations, Mixed Results: Trends

in Citizen Involvement in Canadian Environmental Governance. Governing the

Environment. E. Parsons. Toronto ON, Oxford University Press

: 

1-41.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley CA, University of

California Press.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating : Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.

San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Hardin, G. (1968). "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 

162

: 1243-1248.

Hunter, C. (1997). "Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm." Annals of Tourism

Research 

24

(4): 850-867.

Jamal, T. and D. Getz (1999). "Community Roundtables for Tourism-related Conflicts:

The Dialectics of Consensus and Process Structures." Journal of Sustainable

Tourism 

7

(3/4): 290-313.

Jamal, T. B. and D. Getz (1995). "Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism

Planning." Annals of Tourism Research 

22

(1): 186-204.

Keogh, B. (1990). "Public Participation in Community Tourism Planning." Annals of

Tourism Research 

17

(3): 449-465.

28

Medeiros de Araujo, L. and B. Bramwell (1999). "Stakeholder Assessment and

Collaborative Tourism Planning: The Case of Brazil's Costa Dourada Project."

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 

7

(3/4): 356-378.

Pacheco-Vega, H. R. (1998). A Proposed Theoretical Model for the Construction of

Strategic Alliances in the Biotechnology Industry. 1998 R&D Management

Conference: Technology Strategy and Strategic Alliances, Avila, Spain, R&D

Management.

Parker, S. (1999). "Collaboration on Tourism Policy Making: Environmental and

Commercial Sustainability on Bonaire, NA." Journal of Sustainable Tourism

7

(3/4): 240-259.

Reed, M. G. (1999). "Collaborative Tourism Planning as Adaptive Experiments in

Emergent Tourist Settings." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 

7

(3/4): 331-355.

Reed, M. G. (1999). "Power Relations and Community-Based Tourism Planning."

Annals of Tourism Research 

24

(3): 566-591.

Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). "Interest Based Formulation of Tourism Policy for

Environmentally Sensitive Destinations." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 

7

(3/4):

206-237.

Sautter, E. T. and B. Leisen (1999). "Managing Stakeholders. A Tourism Planning

Model." Annals of Tourism Research 

26

(2): 312-328.

Stonich, S. (1998). "Political Ecology of Tourism." Annals of Tourism Research 

25

(1):

25-54.