MSc in Sustainable Development
Dissertation Thesis
"Participatory destination management and creative tourism: From co-production of tourism
products to co-creation of experiences. Α reality and stakeholders' check for Thessaloniki,
Greece."
Christos Patikas
Supervisor: Dr. Marianna Sigala
Thessaloniki, 2014
Table of contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….3
1. Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………...4
2. Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1.: The destination………………………………………………………………...7
2.2.: Participatory destination management
2.2.1.: Destination’s stakeholder’s analysis and management …………10
2.2.1a.: Stakeholders: definition, types, interests and role in destinations
2.2.1b.: Stakeholder’s management approaches………………..11
2.2.2.: The role of DMO in destination management…………………...12
2.3.: Destination Governance……………………………………………………..15
2.4.: Community based tourism…………………………………………………..20
2.5.: Creative tourism
2.5.1.: From cultural tourism to creative tourism……………………….22
2.5.2.: Creative tourism importance and implementation……………….24
2.5.3.: Creative tourism and participatory destination management…....26
2.5.4.: DMO’s role in supporting and fostering creative tourism………28
2.6.: From co-production of tourism products to co-creation of experiences….30
3. Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1.: Research aims…………………………………………………………………32
3.2.: Methods of data collection……………………………………………………32
3.3.: Design of research instruments………………………………………………33
3.4.: Methods of data collection……………………………………………………33
3.5.: Design of research sample……………………………………………………34
3.6.: Limitations of the study
3.6.1.: General limitations………………………………………………….35
3.6.2.: Sample limitations………………………………………………….35
4. Chapter 4: Analysis of the study context………………………………………………..36
5. Chapter 5: Research findings…………………………………………………………….38
6. Chapter 6: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………..42
7. Chapter 7: References…………………………………………………………………….45
-2-
Abstract
In the modern globalised world, competition among tourism destinations becomes
more severe. Destinations who can offer a tourism product that is able to attract new
visitors who get emotionally attached with the destination and repeat their visit, can
create and sustain a big competitive advantage. Creative tourism, the evolution of
cultural tourism, is a contemporary form of tourism that can exploit visitor’s creative
sense and treat him/her as an active member of the local lifestyle. To implement such
a shift in tourism product, participatory destination management is an intangible asset
and a basic perquisite. Collaborative actions for tourism development using
stakeholder management and contemporary governance is the most efficient and
legitimate way to exploit all possible social and economic resources of a destination
in a sustainable manner. In this context a coordinator organization, a local DMO is a
strong meta-governance structure that express collaboration processes. The current
study attempts to conduct a reality check on the willingness of stakeholders in
Thessaloniki, Greece to adopt such a policy and use it as a foundation of a shift to
creative tourism that can move the city from the edge of co-production of tourism
products to the edge of co-creation of tourism experiences with visitors.
-3-
Chapter 1: Introduction
As the world moves towards a deeper globalised environment all human activities, in
addition to social and economic procedures, become even more complicated. Thus the
need for more efficient management schemes becomes top priority for all aspects of
social prosperity and sustainable economic development. A prosperous field where all
the former policies can grow and urgently implemented is tourism industry.
Tourism industry, accounting 9% of global GDP, creating almost 9% of global
employment and projecting a total of 1.8 billion international arrivals for 2030
(UNWTO, 2013) is a crucial sector both in terms of national, regional and local
economic development but also in terms of social development and prosperity. On the
other hand tourism is often recognized as a non-environmental friendly industry.
Hence if development policies steer towards a more environmental friendly set of
actions, tourism can become a sustainable development paradigm with global positive
consequences.
Spatial distribution of tourism development, both in terms of socioeconomic benefits
but also in terms of environmental and sometimes social distraction, brings
destination as a system to the center of the tourism development process. Hence,
tourism destination can be considered as the most important unit of management
applications (D’Angella & Go, 2009). A proper choice of effective management
action can provide the destination with a huge competitive advantage in the tourism
market. Recent studies have shown that the most effective way to increase
competitive advantage of a destination is to implement strategic planning with the
collaboration of various stakeholders of a destination (Getz & Jamal, 1994; Ritchie &
Crouch, 2003). Thus a stakeholder management approach seems to be more effective
than the classical top-down hierarchy approach when tourism destination
development is to be considered. The latter is also evident by the fact that
destination’s stakeholders are strongly interdependent given the nature of tourism
industry where destination’s resources are usually deeply fragmented and small sized
(Pearce, 1992).
In this vein there is a need to effectively and efficiently govern destinations in order to
ensure their good performance and competiveness. To that end, the right mix of
-4-
balance is needed between destination’s stakeholders but also between tourism
development and inhabitant’s living conditions. In this scenario, Destination
Management Organizations (DMOs) seek to keep this balance but also to orchestrate
decision making on design, organization and management of relationships in the
destination’s stakeholders network (D’Angella & Go, 2009). Thus, a destination’s
DMO acts as a major stakeholder responsible for coordinating and managing
destination’s stakeholder’s interests, vision, goals and objectives.
Contemporary destination management treats local communities as a major
stakeholder too. More specifically in the modern destination management, tourism
must be treated as a resource of communities and not communities as a resource for
tourism (Moscardo in Laws et.al, 2011). Thus, community capacity building is a
perquisite if local communities are to be considered in the tourism development
process and lack of knowledge is the basic barrier towards this target.
Contemporary destination management needs to engage tourist to the development
procedure also. Tourists are another major stakeholder of a tourism destination but
their main role is usually the one of a passive consumer of destination’s tourism
product. Since modern tourists seek mainly for experiences, a destination that is able
to transform a tourist from a passive gazer to an active actor of destination’s everyday
life by engaging him/her into creative production and consumption scenes (Richards,
2011), will eventually achieve and sustain a big competitive advantage. Tourists get
emotionally touched with the destination through the latter participation scheme and
thus repeat visitation or even become destination’s ambassador to his/her home
country.
Although this shift towards creative tourism is considered an asset for a destination
the role of DMOs and tourism stakeholders in general to excel this type of tourism
development is not yet sufficiently researched. Moreover this shift towards more
creative forms of tourism development can be a scene where a transformation occurs
from the co-production of tourism products between local stakeholders to the cocreation of tourism experiences between tourists and local communities and
entrepreneurs.
The city of Thessaloniki, Greece can possibly operate as real case study for the above
propositions. Firstly, because of its immaturity as a tourism destination but also
-5-
because of its relatively big creative industry sector. In this context, this thesis aims to
identify the stakeholders of the city and perform a reality check of the stakeholder’s
capabilities and willingness to support its tourism development by adding a creative
aspect to it.
-6-
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1: The destination
As the tourism industry is very both spatially but also sectional distributed,
destinations as an action site of tourism activities play a major importance in uniting
disparate tourism related organizations. A tourism destination is defined as “a
geographical region, political jurisdiction, or major attraction, which seeks to provide
visitors with a range of satisfying to memorable visitation experiences”, thus is
obviously important as “the primary unit of study and management action”.
(Bornhorst et all, 2010).
Although according to UNWTO (p.1, 2007) “tourism destination is a physical space
in which a tourist spends at least one overnight which has physical and administrative
boundaries”, Bornhorst et all (p.572, 2010) argue that it is managerially more
effective to view a destination as “the geographical region which contains a sufficient
critical mass or cluster of attractions so as to be capable of providing tourists with
visitation experiences that attract them to the destination for tourism purposes”. In this
context destination is not delineated only in geographical and political terms where
the notion of destination is expressed by countries, regions, cities or metropolitan
cities but can be differentiated to contain sites of major tourism importance within the
same region or city (i.e. Eurodisneyland, Machu Picchu ruins in Peru etc.).
A supply-focus destination definition, projects the destination as an area where
various components of the visitor economy supply their services to travel and tourism
markets (Middleton et al., 2009). Finally, a more holistic approach to the notion of
destination would consider the role of local community and the environment in the
amalgam of the tourism product (Reid et al., 2004).
In this vein, the role of the destination is crucial towards management of tourism
development. Bornhorst et al (p.573, 2010) argue that a destination has two primary
and a number of supporting roles. First, “it must seek to enhance the social and
economic well-being of the residents who live within its boundaries” and secondly it
must provide “the enhancement of resident well-being by offering a range of activities
and experiences of the kind that we identify as “tourism experiences””.
Moreover a tourism destination consists of several elements which can attract the
visitor to the destination. Cho, B.H. (2000) as cited in UNWTO (p.1, 2007) argues
-7-
that the basic elements of a destination can be broken down into two main categories.
Attractions (built or cultural) and all the other remaining elements. In more detail
UNWTO (pp. 1-2, 2007) classifies the following elements of a tourism destination:
Attractions. These are often the main and initial motivations for a potential
visitor of the destination. Attractions can split to different categories whether
being tangible or intangible (e.g. uniqueness) as:
1. Natural (mountains, beaches, weather)
2. Built (heritage monuments, well known buildings, religious buildings,
stadiums)
3. Cultural (theaters, museums, art galleries, cultural events)
Amenities. In this group are gathered all facilities or services that support
visitors’ stay. Including accommodation, roads, public transport, catering
services and guides or info services.
Accessibility. This element is connected with everything that can make the
destination accessible to a large amount of population containing air, road,
train and cruise/ships travel services.
Image. Another crucial element of destination’s success. Again there is
presence of both tangible (sights, scenes) but also intangible assets of the
destination such as the friendliness of people, their tourism culture and
environmental quality.
Price. Especially in recent turbulent economic era pricing is crucial for a
destination’s success. Prices in transportation and accommodation can deeply
affect customer’s choices.
Human Resources. This special aspect of a destination is rarely taken into
account from the policy makers but is equally crucial to the former. Well
trained workforce of a destination combined with citizens well aware of
tourism potential for the city can create miracles in terms of repeated
visitation.
Using this typology to analyze the characteristics and assets of a destination it is
obvious that success of a tourism destination is a multidimensional goal. A net of
several stakeholders is acting in the destination’s scene in order to produce what
the visitor will perceive as the experience of the destination. Thus destination
domain can be characterized as “an open – system of interdependent, multiple
-8-
stakeholders, where the actions of one stakeholder impact on the rest of the actors
in the community” (Jamal and Getz, 1995).
Hence the destination as an open-system seems to follow the nature of tourism
industry in general. Pearce in his book Tourism Organizations (p.5, 1992)
describes the basic elements of the nature of the tourism industry:
“Interdependence, small size, market fragmentation, and spatial separation are all
factors which may lead to a desire for combined action, a willingness to unite to
achieve common goals, a need to form tourism organizations”.
As a consequence of this notion, successful tourism destination development and
competitive destination performance comes along with proper destination
management and thus effective destination governance (Laws et al., 2011).
-9-
2.2.: Participatory destination management.
2.2.1.: Destination’s stakeholder’s analysis and management
2.2.1a.: Stakeholders: definition, types, interests and role in destinations
Several studies in management theory suggest that modern institutions are not selfsufficient. In contrary they depend on support from other organizations (except
shareholders) within their business environment. In addition they argue that the
degree of dependence on another external actor is connected with the concentration
and control of resources that he possesses and hence the degree of threat that can
wield from its operation (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978 in Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005).
D’Angella and Go (2009) argue that alliances, partnerships, clustering, networking
may represent a more effective strategy than conventional business models that
represent a more stand-alone model. Especially in tourism which is mainly
characterized as a “network driven” business the latter “free-rider” model seems
inadequate to achieve and sustain competitiveness.
In this context, focus is given on the importance of stakeholder as the basic cell of the
collaboration process. The notion of “stakeholder” and stakeholder theory in general
is mainly part of the business management literature. Freeman (p.25, 1984) in his
seminal study provided the most recognized and accepted definition of stakeholder as
“any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by the achievement of a
corporation’s purpose”. Although Freeman’s definition is quite broad it becomes
apparent that he argues of the importance of interactions between an organization and
external groups that can affect the organization. The importance of those interactions
supports the shift to a strategic planning based in stakeholder theory and
collaboration.
The first step towards implementing a stakeholder theory approach as a tool for
collaborative destination management is the acknowledgement of destination’s
stakeholders. According to WTO (pp.6-7, 2007) and Sheehan and Ritchie (2005) the
various stakeholders of a destination include: national-regional-local authorities,
economic development agencies, attractions and cultural organizations, transport
providers, accommodation providers, intermediates (tour operators), competitors,
media, local business, educational institutions, social agencies, convention centers,
- 10 -
visitors. Sigala and Marinidis (2012) argue that none of the previously mentioned
stakeholders can control the destination by themselves due to the fact that they are
strongly interdependent and the destination environment is complex and deeply
fragmented by several firms. Moreover those stakeholders often possess different
resources, values and goals that turn destination’s interconnections deeply turbulent
and collaboration a difficult equation to solve (Wang, 2008 in Sigala and Marinidis,
2012).
2.2.1b.: Stakeholder’s management approaches
Once destination’s relevant stakeholders have been identified management of the
latter, based on differentiation among them, is the step to follow. Several studies have
argued on different ways of differentiation. Many (Carroll 1989; Clarkson 1995; and
Freeman 1984 in Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005) differentiate stakeholders as primary
and secondary based on the form of engagement they have with the organization. In
broad terms primary are the group of stakeholders who are essential for the survival of
the organization contrary to secondary that are not engaged in contractual transactions
with the organizations. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1987) choose a typology of
stakeholder salience based on a blend of attributes of power, urgency and legitimacy.
Finally, Savage et al. (p.65, 1991) propose a more holistic approach that is based on
the relation between the stakeholders’ potential to threat the organization to their
potential to cooperate with it. Thus, they propose a matrix of four different strategies.
A “Collaboration strategy”, where the potential for both collaboration and threat is
high. A “Defensive strategy” when potential for threat is high and potential for
cooperation is low. An “Involvement strategy” when potential for threat is low and
potential for cooperation is high and “Monitoring strategy” when potential for both
collaboration and threat is low.
Savage et al. based on this typology suggest a blend of management strategies where
more importance is given to stakeholders keen on cooperating while effort is made to
shift stakeholders from a less efficient category to a more favorable one.
The following Figure.1 is indicative of the typology.
- 11 -
Stakeholder’s potential for threat
Stakeholder’s
High
potential for
cooperation
Low
High
Low
Mixed Blessing
Supportive
Strategy: Collaborate
Strategy: Involve
Non-supportive
Marginal
Strategy: Defend
Strategy:
Monitor
Figure 1: Stakeholder’s management strategies typology per Savage et al (1991)
None of these stakeholder’s collaboration strategies can be implemented without the
initiation of a convener organization. The result of combining the proposed
architecture of a non-profit umbrella organization with the collaborative spirit of the
stakeholder theory, as expressed previously is a destination management organization
(DMO).
2.2.2.: The role of DMO in destination management.
According to WTO (pp.2-3, 2007), the role of the DMO is to “lead and coordinate
activities under a coherent strategy. They don’t control the activities of their partners
but bring together resources and expertise and a degree of independence and
objectivity to lead the way forward”. In essence WTO (p.12) compares the destination
with a “factory” where DMO’s role is to be in charge of it with a duty to achieve an
efficient return on investment, market growth, quality products and branding to all
“shareholders”. The crucial difference with the corporation analog is that the DMO do
not own the “factory’ neither employ people working on it, nor controls all of its
processes. D’Angella and Go (p.429. 2009) argue that the role of a DOM is to
“orchestrate decision making” on management and organization of the relationships in
a tourism network in order to compete effectively with other tourism networks and
thus achieve economic performance for both DMO and its stakeholders.
- 12 -
Moreover a DMO should be able to be legitimate and in power to address the multiple
interests of the various stakeholders involved in the destination’s development
process. Efficient leadership and effective pooling of resources are among DMO’s
responsibilities too (Sigala and Marinidis, 2009). Hence, as Sigala (2009) argues,
“DMO is becoming a prominent destination developer” firstly by acting as a catalyst
for realization of benefits and drawbacks of tourism development but also by
supporting destination’s stakeholders in order to improve their competitiveness and
thus improve destination’s performance too.
In this context it is crucial to acknowledge the most important stakeholders of a
destination but also to understand their relative importance in the decision-making
process. Sheehann and Ritchie (2005) initiated a graphic “stakeholder view of the
DMO” based on a research among several DMO CEOs.
In the following Figure 2 stakeholder salience decreases as distance from the DMO
increases.
Figure 2: A stakeholder view of the DMO
Source: Sheehan and Ritchie, Destination Stakeholders Exploring Identity and Salience (2005)
Several assumptions are made from Figure 2. Firstly, becomes apparent the crucial
role of the DMO as a coordinator of many different interests both of public but also of
private suppliers. Secondly, local and regional governments combined with hoteliers
seem to be the most important actors for a DMO. Sheehan and Ritchie in the same
- 13 -
study argue that this is valid because of the fact that the former are the most crucial
funding providers and the latter play an extremely important role as accommodation
facilitators but also as attractors of conventional tourism. Although this study is
strongly indicative of the identity and the relative importance of a DMO, it has to be
remarked that there is an absence of special interests groups mainly due to the
perceived by the DMO’s CEOs destructive image.
Applying Savage et al (1991) typology of stakeholders, Sheehan and Ritchie also
assessed CEO’s opinion of the relative importance of the stakeholders based on the
potential to cooperate or to threat the organization. The study found that CEO’s of
DMOs perceptions almost agree with Savage et al (1991) typology arguing that the
latter is valid for further use.
The results are presented in the following Figure 3.
Stakeholder’s potential for threat
High
Low
Mixed Blessing
Supportive
potential for
Strategy: Collaborate
Strategy: Involve
cooperation
Stakeholders: City
Stakeholders:
government, Regional
Attractions,
government, State/provincial
members,
government and board of
restaurants,
directors, convention center,
university/college,
residents
chamber of
Stakeholder’s
High
commerce,
sponsors
Low
Non-supportive
Marginal
Strategy: Defend
Strategy: Monitor
Stakeholders: None
Stakeholders:
None
Figure 3: Savage et al (1991) typology for key DMO stakeholders. Source: Sheehan and
Ritchie, Destination Stakeholders Exploring Identity and Salience (2005)
- 14 -
In general, facilitators and managers of a DMO indicate as most important those
stakeholders who control the resources of the DMO. Thus perceived importance of a
stakeholder is fully analog to its “threat to funding” (Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005).
Several studies (Sigala, 2009; Sigala and Marinidis 2012; Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005)
have also proved that some trade-offs of a DMO’s operation do exist both for the
organization and the destination. Although uncontrolled participation to DMO’s
operating scheme is a desirable target, limitation to participation is considered the
most effective strategy. This is due to the fact that stakeholders holding power and
resources feel threaten of the possible decline of their power to control decisionmaking, while on the other hand non-power stakeholders may create more
expectations than those that their relative power can address. Thus there is a need for
a delicate and balanced form of stakeholder management that will secure the full
encompass of the pre-mentioned stakeholders while carefully explore their potential
to threaten DMO’s operations by seeking all of the available methods and incentives
to engage every stakeholder in such manner that will maximize potential benefits and
minimize potential of threat.
Finally Bornhorst et al (2010) argue that DMO’s success is not always followed by
destination’s success. More specifically they indicate that DMO success and
destination success share some similarities (community support, marketing,
destination performance) but also some differences too. Unique to a destination’s
success found to be: tourism product and services offer, location and its accessibility,
quality of visitor experience and community support. On the other hand DMO’s
success is uniquely measured by more hard economic indicators as effective
management, supplier relations and focused in strategic planning.
2.3.: Destination Governance
Modern societies are facing numerous structural and deeply complicated changes.
Thus there is a strong need of participative solutions due to the fact that no public or
private stakeholder can sustain sufficient resources or information to address those
strategic challenges on his own. Progress in several governing models brought
governance to surface as an answer to modern socio-economical requirements (de
- 15 -
Bruin & Alonso, 2012). Destination as an open system of many interdependent
stakeholders can be easily considered as a proper governance implementation field
(Spyriadis et al in Laws et al, 2011).
Before highlighting the interconnection between governance schemes and tourism
destination development, it is useful to analyze the term governance. Graham et al.
(2003) argue that in broad terms, governance refers to the processes by which groups
of people make decisions focusing on the decision-making processes and how
execution of power is organized and used in a group. On the other hand Rhodes
(1997, in Laws et al., 2011) claims that “governance refers to the self-organizing,
inter-organizational networks characterized by interdependence, resource exchange,
rules of the game and significant autonomy from the state”.
In the context of management and development of tourism destinations, governance
refers to the processes but also the organizations responsible for implementation of
decision making in tourism. Those organizations can differ from various levels of
government structures to chambers of commerce, private sector enterprises, tourism
promotion bureaus and community or resident groups (Hall, 2005). Thus destination
governance consists of two core dimensions. Firstly, it refers to structure and links of
the destination’s tourism network characterized by interdependence of stakeholders,
exchange of available resources, codes of conduct, hierarchy and authority. Secondly,
destination governance refers to the way in which the multiple destination
stakeholders manage their relationship towards the common goal of meeting visitor’s
demands and the process they use to achieve this target. In conclusion destination
governance can be defined as “the totality of interactions of governments, public
bodies, private sector and civil societies that aim at solving problems, meeting
challenges and creating opportunities for the visitor economy at the destination”
(Spyriadis et al. in Laws et al., 2011).
Regarding structure of destination governance, stakeholders with their inevitable
interdependences can be considered as the basic nodes of development networks.
Destination networks are described by Provan & Kenis (p.231, 2008) as “groups of
three or more legally autonomous organizations that work together to achieve not only
their own goals but also a collective goal. Such networks may be self-initiated, by
network members themselves, or may be mandated or contracted”. Thus it becomes
- 16 -
apparent a shift from geographical cluster formation of stakeholders towards network
structures.
De Bruyn & Alonso (p.232-233, 2012) argue that there is a twofold distinction of
destination governance models. On the one hand a geographical distinction exists
among national, regional and local tourism organizations responsible for tourism
development. On the other hand each of the latter organizations can use several
governance models to structure their organizations such as Council Departments and
Business Units (within local tourism authority), Council organizations and Council
controlled trusts or Independent Organizations.
From all of the above it becomes apparent that a strong multi-agency partnership is
needed especially if local tourism development is to be considered. In this context
decision-making process is more flexible and several demands are also heard from
local communities and other interest groups. Thus a non-profit governance structure
seems to be the most appropriate scheme for destinations (Spyriadis et al. in Laws et
al., 2011) due to the fact that it enables stakeholders to operate in complex
environments, mobilizing resources from markets, community or governmental
subsidies while promoting civic and democratic objectives (Enjorlas, 2009).
Moreover another basic characteristic of a destination’s tourism product is that of
collective ownership, meaning that there is no single stakeholder that can declare
himself as the direct and exclusive owner of the destination’s tourism product. On the
other hand none of the stakeholders can benefit directly from the tourism product of
the destination without be affected from other stakeholder’s decisions. Hence
collaboration of autonomous stakeholders under one umbrella organization can form
an effective destination development governance structure (Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005).
The non-profit governance structure may face several trade-offs too. Inefficiencies,
misuse of resources, lack of trust and transparency and goal displacement can be
major obstacles towards the initiation of an effective destination governance scheme
(Spyriadis et al. in Laws et al., 2011).
While destination governance architecture is a major first step nothing can be
implemented without defining the operating process of the structure. Contemporary
literature (Fyall and Garrod, 2005; Ritchie and Crouch, 2005) suggests collaboration
and “co-opetition” as basic elements of an organization responsible for destination
- 17 -
development. This is mainly because those attributes can excel destination
development, improve “product” quality and most important, create and sustain
competitive advantage of the destination.
Jamal and Getz (p.188, 1995) define collaborative tourism planning as “process of
joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders of an interorganizational, community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the
domain and/or to manage issues related to the planning and development of the
domain”. In more general context collaboration in tourism takes place when “a group
of autonomous stakeholders engaged in an interactive process, using shared rules,
norms, and structures to act or decide on issues related to a particular problem domain
through a process of exchange of ideas and expertise and pooling of financial and
human resources” (Vernon et al., 2005 in Sigala and Marinidis, 2012).
Collaboration as process needs to fulfill certain preconditions in order to be effective.
According to Jamal and Getz (pp.196-200) there are six preconditions of effective
collaboration in tourism:
1. Recognition of high degree of interdependence of stakeholders in planning
and managing the domain.
2. Recognition among stakeholders of mutual and individual benefits from
collaboration process.
3. Implementation of decisions. Legitimate processes and inclusion of all key
stakeholders are crucial towards securing implementation of decisions.
4. Inclusion of all levels of key stakeholders such as local tourism authorities,
chamber of commerce, convention and visitor bureaus, resident
organizations, social agencies.
5. Existence of a coordinator body. Basic characteristics of such organization
should be: legitimacy, expertise, authority and efficient resources.
6. Common vision, goals and objectives
Moreover the proposed organization participants usually have different intentions and
objectives that may turn decision-making process into a tough quest. More
specifically, Laws et al. (p.193, 2011) suggest that the influence is determined by
three key attributes of the destination governance participants: power, legitimacy, and
- 18 -
urgency. Those attributes can be crucial due to the fact that can determine the amount
of necessary resources and the final outcome of value creation for the destination.
In conclusion, in order to sustain a collaborative governance structure where multiple
stakeholders need to collaborate while possessing different amount and type of
resources and thus different power basis, co-governance is essential (Sullivan et al.,
2006 in Laws et al, 2011). Hence, regarding process type of governance model,
stakeholder theory can address such a challenge (Sautter and Leisen, 1999 in Laws et
al., 2011).
Although a more extended analysis of the multi-stakeholder approach and its
management is further investigated in the previous chapter of literature review, it is
important to cite the dominant types of governance used in destination management
and the way that can be mixed in order to produce efficient results.
According to Meuleman (2006) there are 3 major “ideal-types of governance”:
hierarchy, market and network. Hierarchy is characterized by rules, authority and puts
the governing organization at the center of the decision-making procedure. Market
type of governance is mainly characterized by prices and competition and finally
networks are based on mutual trust, diplomacy and voluntary agreements among
interdependent actors. In contemporary governance there is no preferable type.
Instead, Meuleman (2006) argues that “contemporary governance needs to be
situational, integrating all three modes according to circumstances”.
Moreover another crucial aspect of destination governance is the co-creation of value
of tourism experiences. Value of destination’s tourism product is mainly perceived by
visitors thus interactions of visitors may need to be considered in the governance
process too (Ciasullo and Carrubbo, 2011; Laws et al., 2011).
From all of the above the complexity of an effective governance model for destination
management becomes evident. A multi-stakeholder approach is preferable but not
enough if the implementation of governance process mix is not effective. Thus there
is a need of an organization that will adjust the mix of governance needed between
different actions of different stakeholders. This “governance of governance” is
referred to as “Meta-governance” (Meuleman, 2006). Due to the fact that a destination
management organization’s role is to “coordinate and integrate the development and
- 19 -
implementation of policies and strategies across different sectors (intersectional) and
across different levels of government (intergovernmental)” (Spyriadis et al. in Laws et
al., 2011), this is a role for a meta-governance institution. This the role of a
destination management organization (DMO) (Beritelli et al., in Laws et., 2011).
2.4.: Community based tourism
A contemporary form of collaborative tourism supports the idea of community
involvement in tourism development as a major stakeholder. Although the notion of
community based tourism is mostly researched in tourism development of rural areas
(Moscardo et al., 2008) where community’s involvement is direct, some of the results
may fit in urban destinations too.
Several studies (Tosun 2005, Moscardo et al., 2008) suggest that stakeholder
collaboration in tourism destination development is a form of community based
tourism due to the fact that residents are represented in the development process and
thus have the ability to secure fair distribution of development benefits not only in
economic but also in social and environmental terms. Moreover in urban destinations
where community cannot involve directly to tourism development due to its relative
size, indirect commitment of community in participatory destination management
institutions (as a DMO) as a key stakeholder empower DMO’s role and results.
Participatory destination management can built a strong consensus over destination
management planning that can lead to a form of sustainable destination management
(Healey, 1996; Waligo et al., 2013).
The strongest barrier against community participation and hence against community
based tourism is lack of awareness over tourism development procedures and
alternatives. In other words, perquisite of implementing and sustaining a community
based tourism destination management is to build a community capacity that can
empower stakeholders with the appropriate knowledge to propose and implement
tourism development ideas and projects (Moscardo et al., 2008). Originated to the
notion of social capital, community capacity refers to education and awareness of
community in tourism development issues, to collective knowledge itself and finally
the existence and ability of community stakeholders to asses and propose alternative
- 20 -
solutions to given projects. In conclusion the notion of community capacity building
refers to “the readiness of the community stakeholders to participate in decision
making (Moscardo, 2008 in Sigala and Marinidis, 2012).
In contrary, in the absence of community capacity, leadership for tourism
development comes from outside the destination’s community. In that way
community is excluded from the decision-making process due to lack of knowledge.
(Moscardo et al., 2008).
Sustainability in tourism development requires great attention in developing
community’s capacity over tourism development choices and alternatives. In this
vein, education plays a major role. Education regarding tourism development
practices but most important regarding value of collaboration and building of
consensus among stakeholders. “This requires a change from seeing communities as
resources for tourism towards tourism as a resource for communities” (Moscardo et al
in Laws et al., 2011).
- 21 -
2.5.: Creative Tourism
2.5.1: From cultural tourism to creative tourism
Modern network societies accompanied with knowledge economy aspects have
brought creativity to the surface of contemporary urban policies. Many studies
(Florida, 2002; Frey, 2009) have connected creativity with urban innovation and
regeneration. In the modern global tourism arena cities need to distinguish themselves
and thus gain a strong competitive advantage. Shift to creativity as a mean of
differentiation for urban destinations can be a great asset for a city both in tourism
terms but more generally in urban regeneration terms (Richards, 2012).
Several studies (Klausen, 2010; Scott, 2010, Rhodes, 1961) have tried to associate
creativity with a standard definition. The most dominant approach group creativity
into four main areas, the “4Ps of creativity” (Rhodes, 1961 in Richards, 2011):
The creative person.
The creative process.
The creative product
The creative environment
Tourism in practice involves all of the above four elements of creativity. “Creative
person” is associated with the activities of Florida’s (2002) “creative class”.
According to Florida (2002), “creative class” accounts more than 40 million workers
only in USA and is divided into two main sections:
1. Super-Creative Core: This group includes a wide range of occupations (e.g.
science, engineering, education, computer programming, research), with arts,
design, and media workers forming a small subset. This segment is
considered innovative, creating commercial products and consumer of goods.
The primary work function of its members is to be creative and innovative.
2. Creative Professionals: These professionals are the classic knowledge-based
employees. This segment includes those working in healthcare, business and
finance, the legal sector, and education. They “draw on complex bodies of
knowledge to solve specific problems” using higher degrees of education to
do so (Florida, 2002).
- 22 -
“Creative processes” refer to creative activities for tourists and the way the latter are
implemented. Creative relationship and networking in conjunction with co-creation of
tourism experiences experiences, as described in more detail in the following
chapters, are the main policies proposed in this context.
“Creative products” notion refers to creative products that can be used as tourism
attractions. Those can vary from visits to creative clusters to participation in creative
events.
“Creative environment” or “creative buzz” refers to the outcome all of the above
characteristics have in urban spaces. Presence of creative industry in an urban
destination combined with creators-visitors osmosis in establishment of authentic
local creative experiences can create a unique environment that in turn can generate
visitation to destination (Richards, 2011).
Creativity in tourism industry is an innovative form of development that exists as an
outcome of several social and economic changes. More specifically, Richards (2009)
argues that creative tourism is actually the descendant of cultural tourism. During 20 th
century, when tourists became more experienced started to seek alternative modes of
tourism than classic leisure destinations. This need combined with several
socioeconomic changes turned cultural tourism as a major tourism sector.
Development of society made people seeking for more “high-order” needs as selffulfillment which changed the way of consumption from a static purchase to a selfdevelopment through consumption of goods and services (Scitovsky, 1976 in
Richards, 2009). Moreover there was a dramatic change from the production point of
view too. According to Pine and Gilmore (1999) production of goods and services has
been replaced by “an economy specialized in the production of experiences”. Finally
regarding tourism market, there was a major shift from mass tourism to cultural
tourism. This phenomenon occurred due to promotion of cultural tourism as low
impact for destinations while attracting high-income visitors.
Although cultural tourism is still a dominant form of tourism (ATLAS research in
Richards, 2009), suffers from the consequences of its own success. Excessive
reproduction of cultural tourism model across the globe resulted in an extensive
“commodification” of its practice which led visitors to ask for a new, more active
- 23 -
form of cultural tourism. Visitors ask for experiences “that offer a taste of local or
authentic” culture. They want to “live like locals and find out about the real identity of
the places they visit” (ATLAS research in Richards, 2009). Thus the emergence of
this active type of culture tourism demand, leads to growth of “presumption”, the
process by which visitors (and consumers in general) become co-producers of the
products they consume (Richards, 2009; Chathoth et al., 2013).
In this context, Richards and Raymond (2000) have defined creative tourism as:
“Tourism which offers visitors the opportunity to develop their creative potential
through active participation in courses and learning experiences which are
characteristic of the holiday destination where they are undertaken”.
2.5.2.: Creative tourism importance and implementation
In more detail, Richards (2012) argues that creativity can be used in tourism in several
forms:
Tourism products and experiences
Valorizing cultural and creative assets
Creative techniques to enhance tourism experience
Revitalization of existing products
Provide economic spin-offs for creative development
Creating buzz and atmosphere
Two emerging models of creative development, creative cities (Landry and Bianchini,
1995) and creative class (Florida, 2002) underline the need of a critical mass of
“creative infrastructure” (design, fashion, advertising, music, arts and crafts, software
engineering, cultural heritage) to produce a “creative buzz” for the city and thus make
it favorable for modern tourists. Moreover Rutten and Gelissen (2008) argue that
economic growth of a city is positively associated with three crucial indicators: talent,
technology and diversity. Cities rich in the former attributes except economic growth
can also be more attractive to live, work and most important to visit.
Recent studies (Maitland, 2007; Hanningan, 1998 in Richards, 2012) argue that
modern tourist, rather than passively visit main attractions in a city, seek alternative
forms of visitation, new areas, and a sense of “safe danger”. Thus there is space for a
- 24 -
totally new market of tourism “products” that will be based in co-creation of tourism
experiences rather than just supplying co-created products from city’s stakeholders
(Chathoth et al., 2013). The modern need of tourist to get involved into “everyday
life” of a destination, engage visitors in creative production but also consumption of
experiences lead to an inter-play of producers and consumers that result in
communities of producers and consumers with almost no distinctions. (Richards,
2011). In order to invest in such an inventory, urban destinations need to embed
creativity in destination’s social networks too (Richards, 2012).
In quest of fulfilling visitor’s need for “authentic experiences”, creative tourism needs
to have some common elements. Firstly, it needs operational presence of participative
forms for tourism development and secondly it must allow visitors develop their own
creative potential and skills while getting in touch with locals and their culture
(Richards, 2011).
In this context destination’s stakeholders need to form certain collaborative synergies
in order to produce several strategies that will supply visitors motivations to consume
“local lifestyle” and get “under the skin” of the destination. Those strategies can be:
Creative Spaces
Development of cultural and creative clusters in a destination is a crucial factor of
creative tourism development. Co-creation of experiences relies on both creative
production and consumer’s presence. Thus the presence of a local creative clustering
can be a first step towards the creation of a “creative buzz” for the destination, able to
stimulate visitation from “creative class”. Moreover visitor’s presence can link the
localized “space of places” to the global “space of flows” providing global
recognition to local creators (Castells, 2009 in Ricahrds, 2012).
Creative Events
Creative events represent a great asset of creative tourism for two reasons. Firstly,
events can be a creative space where relations between creators are initiated and
maintained and secondly events are the catalyst of networking between creative
actors. Hence, creative events can play a major role towards establishment of
networks that if maintained properly can excel destination’s tourism product in
combination with enrich in social capital (Richards, 2012).
- 25 -
Creative Relationships
Both of the above strategies provide valuable synergies that help establishment and
maintenance of creative networks both locally and internationally. Richards (2012)
argues that initiation of such relationships helps attraction of VFR visitation while at
the same time local creators can act as “local gatekeepers” that will help visitors get in
contact with “local creativity”. This kind of interactions legitimate creative status of
places and hence attract creative visitors’ streams. The most interesting example of
such strategy is Barcelona which has an international status as “creative destination”
partly because of the initiation of such strategy (Rovira, 2010 in Richards, 2012).
Creative Networks
The next step from creative relationships is the initiation of creative networks among
creative actors but among creative destinations also (New Zealand, Barcelona, Stiges,
Santa Fe, Paris, Rome). Richards (2012) describes such networks as “loose
associations of actors with an interest in creative tourism and the creative industries
such as artists, cultural institutions, tourist boards, tourism providers and local
authorities”. Those networks are usually informally organized but have the ability to
offer tourists a range of creative activities either in the form of courses or taste
experiences. They can also operate as mediators between creative producers and local
cultural institutions. This formalization is crucial towards creation of “creative
crowds” phenomenon (den Dekker and Tabbers, 2012). This is usually a group of
people who except of being producers, they also enhance informal generation of
knowledge and cultural capital that supports creative economy. Thus their presence is
crucial for the upgrade of a destination’s creative tourism “product”.
2.5.3.: Creative tourism and participatory destination management
Definition of creative tourism by Richards and Raymond (2000), mentioned on
previous chapter, has a number of important implications. Firstly, creative tourism
notion does not consider visitors as passive users of destination’s resources. In
contrary, visitor is provided with necessary tools to excel its “creative potential”,
taking much more than souvenirs back home. Moreover during the creative process,
visitor is more actively involved in everyday life of the destination and thus becomes
more engaged with local people and local culture (Richards, 2009).
- 26 -
Most importantly, Richards (2009) argues that creative industry of a destination is not
enough to implement a creative tourism strategy. Since creativity can happen
everywhere, the most important thing is to “link the creative process to the destination
and to anchor it in local culture, creativity and identity”. An effective tool towards this
inclusion of creative industry into the local tourist product is the concept of ‘cocreation”.
Co-creation, which is the modern alternative view of the firm-centric co-production
notion, is informed by service dominant logic (S-D) and is defined as: “the joint
production of value for both customers and firms alike through an interactive
process”. Emphasis is mainly given on joint effort and collaboration of producer and
consumer in value creation activities (Vargo et al., 2008 in Chathoth et al., 2013).
Creative tourism implies a form of co-creation between local creators and visitors
who jointly produce products, services and experiences (Richards, 2009).
A throughout analysis of both creative tourism definition implications and creative
tourism strategies, constitute creative tourism as a deeply participative tourism
development model (Richards, 2012). Although there is no extensive analysis in
current literature of the role of participatory destination management in the evolution
of creative tourism, synergies between local stakeholders are apparent towards
implementation of it (Richards, 2011). As a matter of fact, all of the formerly
proposed creative tourism strategies (creative events, creative spaces, creative
relations and most of all creative networks) contain the notion of co-operation
between certain stakeholders as a strong perquisite of implementation.
Moreover development of creative tourism in a destination is mainly based on local
capacity (atmosphere, skills, and creativity) and thus local social capital. Those
aspects are characteristic of the specific location and importing them is usually
counter-productive towards creation of a distinctive destination profile (Richards,
2009). Hence development of a creative tourism destination demands synergies of the
local stakeholders, in conjunction with visitors, in order to create or expand local
social capital, targeting production of quality and authentic experiences that will
differentiate the destination in visitor’s perception.
Richards (2011) argue that “the material and contextual forms of authenticity so
important in the tangible heritage of cultural tourism” are being replaced by co- 27 -
created conceptual authenticity “that is negotiated in situ by the host and the tourist
each playing a role as the originator of the experience”. Hence perceived authenticity
is one more crucial element of creative tourism that demands synergetic formations.
In conclusion participatory destination management is a strong perquisite is
implementation of creative tourism is to be considered. Since, as mentioned in the
previous chapter, participatory destination management is implemented by local
DMOs the latter play a demanding role in promotion and implementation of creative
tourism initiatives.
2.5.4.: DMO’s role in supporting and fostering creative tourism
Creative tourism is a relatively new form of tourism. Thus destination management
literature is not fully equipped with certain formations that can describe the exact role
of a local DMO towards promoting creative tourism.
Although there is no standard procedure, DMOs role is to act as the coordinator unit
where creators, tourism entrepreneurs and visitors can align their resources in an
effective way for destination’s appeal. In this context, tourism can be beneficial for
creative industries of a destination while the latter can be “an effective conduit for
tourism” (Richards, 2012).
However there is always the danger to chose and
implement simplistic or ineffective models of creative tourism development. In
particular creative tourism sometimes falls into the same trap that led to downgrade of
cultural tourism, the assumption that “having culture, or being creative, is sufficient to
attract tourists” (Raymond, 2007 in Richards, 2012).
In order to overcome such trap, attention has to be paid in intangible factors of
development process, such as planning, knowledge development and networking.
Although tangible assets of a destination are crucial to attract visitors, the former
intangible assets are a perquisite for success in development of creative tourism
strategies. In fact there is strong need of careful design of the development process
containing both tangible and intangible assets (Richards, 2012).
The latter set of strategic approaches in creative tourism development is best
supported by participative forms in destination management. Thus DMO is the only
unit of participatory destination management that can have sufficient resources and
structure in order to assist such a complex development plan. Although participatory
- 28 -
sense of creative tourism projects DMO as a suitable coordinator of such incentives,
there is only practical evidence to prove this allegation.
According to den Dekker and Tabbers (2012) the creative development model that
can be followed by the local DMO has three steps:
1. Dialogue stimulation
During this first step the local DMO need to “map the complete experience network
of the tourist and all actors involved in the city”. The next step is to stimulate a lasting
dialogue between the local actors-stakeholders themselves and between the actors and
potential creative tourists.
2. Possibilities assessment
The following step is to asses which individual dialogue has such market potential
that worth investing DMO’s resources. Potential of shift to creative tourism incentive
needs to be assessed by specialists on creative industry who can acknowledge possible
innovations and trends.
3. Converting chances into cash
DMO’s most important role is to sustain all of the appropriate conditions towards
participative implementation of a creative tourism incentive. If the chosen network
functions well and the DMO sincerely supports its operations then chances for success
in the creative tourism market are high.
Recent real case-studies in Santa Fe, Barcelona, New Zealand and Noord-Brabant
region in Holland have shown that local creators are a step ahead of local DMOs. In
Barcelona, Spain local creativity networks and platforms (Barcelona Creative
Tourism Platform) have started promoting creative industry of the city to global
tourism market achieving amazing results and creating a new “tag” of Barcelona as
creative city to visit.
- 29 -
2.6.: From co-production of tourism products to co-creation of
experiences.
Tourism is a service production system where firms operate in a specific geographical
area and become part of an established network in order to benefit from share of given
resources and as a result to offer better service as a whole (Ciasullo and Carrubbo,
2011). In this context service literature has proposed two different service production
approaches, co-production and co-creation of services (Chathoth et al., 2013).
In current literature (Kristensson et al., 2008; Lusch et al., 2007; Vargo and Lusch,
2004 in Chathoth et al., 2013) co-production approach represents a firm-centric view
of customer involvement in service production. Based on the traditional view of
“goods dominant logic”, co-production is defined as “an exchange of products and
services between customers and firms which is built on a platform of simultaneous
production and consumption”. The basic characteristics of co-production are:
1. The firm at the center of value creation.
2. Ignores the importance of reciprocity between the firm and consumers.
3. Ignores potential of mutual dependence of firm and consumer in service
production.
Alternatively, co-creation approach represents a service dominant logic (S-D)
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a,b in Chathoth et al., 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2004
in Ciasullo and Carrubbo, 2011). Base of this approach is the notion that “service
forms the foundation of value creation through which customers are intensively
engaged in every stage of the value creation process” (Ciasullo and Carrubbo, 2011).
Critical role in this process is to engage in a dialogue with and customers and actually
learn from them and their preferences (Chathoth et al., 2013). In general it requires
“collaboration with customers for the purpose of innovation” (Kristensson et al., 2008
in Chathoth et al., 2013).
Chathoth et al. (2013) argue that the former two approaches are not two absolute
philosophies. In contrary they suggest that “there is a continuum from co-production
to co-creation”. Depending on the service or product intensity of a firm or
organization, the latter can move anywhere on this continuum. Moreover the same
research paper concludes that “the co-creation end of this continuum appears to be an
- 30 -
antecedent of competitive advantage in today’s dynamic world with changing
consumer expectations and needs”. Thus the study proposes a turn towards a more
service-dominant philosophy for the organization or firm.
As mentioned in the previous chapters destination is considered as a complex tourist
product from both demand and supply point of view (Ciasullo and Carrubbo, 2011).
Thus there is a strong need of synergic coopetition (Della Corte, 2000 in Ciasullo and
Carrubbo, 2011) between destination’s stakeholders due to heavy interdependence
among them. In this brief context except of the need of proper destination governance
and strategic planning that was mentioned in previous chapters of the current study,
improvement of appeal and standards of service provided to visitors are of major
importance also. Thus “a series of relations characterized by logics of co-production
and collaboration” between stakeholders of the destination are favored (Ciasullo and
Carrubbo, 2011). As a result, participatory destination management represents an
organizational co-production model.
In contrary, inclusion of creative tourism in a destination’s tourism development
inventory possibly move the destination as an organization closer to the co-creation
edge of the continuum. Turn from static cultural tourism development projects to a
co-creation model of participative “authentic” experiences that allow people to
develop their personal creativity and skills, seems to accomplish all of co-creation
approach characteristics.
- 31 -
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1.: Research aims
The general aim of this thesis is to examine feasibility of participatory destination
management for supporting creative tourism in Thessaloniki, Greece and the research
of the real contribution of stakeholders to creative tourism potential of the city.
In more detail, the study aims at first to analyze Thessaloniki, Greece stakeholder’s
views on participatory destination management and then to examine in what way
those perceptions on collaborative destination management could motivate initiation
of creative tourism applications in the city.
3.2.: Methods of data collection
According to research aims, the study follows an inductive in nature and thus
qualitative, interpretative approach (Saunders et al., 2003). Qualitative research
contains several formations. The research method of data collection chosen was semistructured in-depth interviews with key stakeholders of Thessaloniki, Greece as a
tourism destination.
According to Longhurst (2009), “in-depth, semi-structured interviews are verbal
interchanges where one person, the interviewer, attempts to elicit information from
another person by asking questions. Even though interviewers tend to prepare a list of
predetermined questions, in-depth, semi-structured interviews usually unfold in a
conversational manner offering participants the chance to pursue issues they feel are
important”. Semi-structure type of interviewing is like a conversation and there is a
need of flow from the responses previously given by the respondents (Brophy et al.,
2008).
Semi-structured in-depth interviews with key actors of a research field are more
associated with qualitative analysis in tourism research (Ritchie B. et al., 2005). Thus,
due to lack of practical evidence and due to nature of stakeholders, in-depth semistructured interviews were chosen as an appropriate method to accomplish the aims of
the study.
- 32 -
Moreover semi-structured interviews, as a qualitative research method, favor informal
dialogue between questions that is crucial if terminology and connected notions of
research aim are less familiar to stakeholders interviewed. An interviewer is then
expected to ask follow up questions and probes to get in-depth information.
Creativity and creative tourism notions may be less familiar to certain stakeholders.
Hence, in contrast with other qualitative research methods, in-depth semi-structured
interviews can help the researcher understand to what extend stakeholders are familiar
with the latter notions and its relative implications.
3.3.: Design of research instruments
Research aim was filtered into three main targets of research according to literature
review applications:
A. Explore stakeholders' perceptions about the potential of participatory
destination management for managing Thessaloniki, Greece as a tourism
destination.
B. Investigate the degree of stakeholders' familiarization with the notion of
“creative tourism” and their level of willingness to apply resources towards
implementation of it.
C. Measure the stakeholders' perceptions about the role of participatory
destination management in implementing creative tourism in Thessaloniki,
Greece
3.4.: Methods of data collection
After research targets have set there is a need of survey research design inventory.
Survey research design can have many different forms but according to Muijs (2004),
“all are characterized by the collection of data using standard questionnaire forms
administrated by telephone or face to face, by postal pencil-and-paper questionnaires
or increasingly by using web-based and e-mail forms”.
Questionnaires are an efficient way to gather relevant information and it is extremely
important to develop a proper design according to research aims and targets.
Moreover questionnaires are not time-consuming and can secure privacy of
respondents (Brace, 2004).
- 33 -
For this particular purpose, questionnaires have been delivered in multiple ways based
on stakeholder’s preferences. A questionnaire of thirteen questions was designed
based on the former three research targets.
Four face to face interviews were conducted and two using e-mailing answer of
questionnaire due to time and space constraints of the interviewees.
3.5.: Design of research sample
The potential research sample of the current study consists of Thessaloniki’s, Greece
tourism stakeholders. According to literature typologies (WTO, 2007; Sheenhan and
Ritchie, 2005; Sigala and Marinidis, 2012) the group of Thessaloniki’s tourism
product stakeholders contains the following organizations and individuals:
Municipality of Thessaloniki
Greek national tourism organization
Thessaloniki convention bureau
Local attraction authorities (museums, archeological sites)
Port authorities
Chamber of Commerce
Local community (residential organizations, NGOs)
Regional government of Central Macedonia
Thessaloniki Tourism and Marketing organization
Thessaloniki Hotels association
Airlines and other transportation authorities
Creative industry entrepreneurs
Universities
Visitors
Due to time constraints of the research there was a selection among them. The
selection was firstly based on Sheenhan and Ritchie (2005) study on salience of a
DMO’s stakeholders and secondly on stakeholders relevance with study aims. Thus,
from a total of fourteen stakeholders, eight were finally approached. Visitors, port
authorities were excluded due to time constraints, universities due to relevant salience
and Greek national tourism organization, local attraction authorities and Thessaloniki
tourism and marketing organization due to lack of legitimate representation.
- 34 -
Face to face interviews were conducted with the following stakeholders:
Municipality of Thessaloniki representative
Thessaloniki Convention Bureau
Aegean Airlines representative
Creativity Platform NGO representative
Interviews through e-mail questionnaire were conducted with the following
stakeholders:
Local community NGO (NOPE)
Chamber of commerce representative
Finally representatives from regional government of Central Macedonia and
Thessaloniki Hotels association did not reply to the questionnaire in time, although
given adequate time.
3.6.: Limitations of the study
3.6.1.: General limitations
Due to time constrains of research and stakeholders it was impossible to conduct one
way of interviews. More specifically, half of interviews were conducted face to face
and half using e-mail written responses. Thus, there is a limitation regarding nature of
responses since face to face semi-structure in depth interviews are more spontaneous.
In contrary, e-mail responses can be more prepared and less impulsive
3.6.2.: Sample limitations
Due to lack of legitimate representation of certain stakeholders in conjunction with
time constraints of the research process in general, the final number of interviewees
were half of the total sample. This aspect adds a serious limitation to the degree of
valid representation of research results.
- 35 -
Chapter 4: Analysis of the study context
Research is conducted in the city of Thessaloniki, Greece. Thessaloniki, Greece is
located in the Northern part of Greece (520 km. north of Athens) in the region of
Central Macedonia. Being the second in terms of population city of Greece
(population of all the metropolitan area in 2011 reached a total of 1.104.460
inhabitants) and the fifth in Balkans, is the second most populated city that is not a
capital after Istanbul. Built near the sea (at the back of the Thermaïkos Gulf),
Thessaloniki is Greece's second major economic, industrial, commercial and political
centre, and a major transportation hub for the rest of southeastern Europe.
Thessaloniki has a unique history background of more than 2300 years. A great
variety of remains from different civilizations among of which are the following:
Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman. Moreover Thessaloniki exists as a
unique mosaic of modern civilization residents and religions (Jewish, Turks,
Bulgarians, Greeks). These characteristics are enough to create a set of different but
joint tales that can describe the city’s sense as a unique crossroad of people and
history. 15 World Heritage Monuments of UNESCO are located in Thessaloniki also.
Moreover, the city is located less than an hour from unique global historical heritage
sites such as the ancient city of Vergina, capital of the Macedonian civilization (where
tombs of Philip II King of the Macedons are found), the ancient city of Pella, the
archeological site of Dion and finally the famous Mount Olympus.
Except historical heritage assets Thessaloniki has to offer a variety of modern cultural
assets too. Home of the 53 years old Thessaloniki international Film Festival, the
2012 WOMEX expo and the Macedonian Museum of Contemporary Art the city has
a lot to offer in modern arts too.
Thessaloniki’s greater modern landmark is its totally renovated waterfront area. By
the end of 2013 citizens and visitors of Thessaloniki are be able to walk by the sea to
a modern multi-theme area of 6km. Although it seems strange this special area has the
ability to become the most value asset of the city because of the images it creates all
time of the year for everyone using it. It is the place that can be a trademark of the
new spirit of the city.
- 36 -
Being the home city of the biggest student and academic community in Greece (1/10
of its population are students and university professors) who are allocated in 3
universities and one technical institution Thessaloniki can easily be described as a
lively city despite its age. In addition the city belongs to the European Union’s
Innovation Zone, an area designed to house innovative enterprises and research
organizations. In recent years local groups have created a great force of creativity
keeping the city spirit alive both in academic innovation terms but also in simple
youth initiatives and actions. Moreover the wide nightlife of the city adds to its youth
preface. A great proof of the above and a great opportunity for the city also, is the
nomination of Thessaloniki as the European Youth Capital of 2014. Such an
organization can move the center of the city’s main touristic provision from the great
history of the city to the present and the future character that needs to create.
Thessaloniki’s present situation in organizational destination management terms is
amateurish. Before 2006 all processes regarding management of the city as tourism
destination was on a Prefecture of Thessaloniki’s authority. In 2007 a DMO called
Thessaloniki Tourism Organization and Marketing (TTOM) was introduced. The
ambitious plan of the initiation of the DMO was to increase visitation in the city up to
100% until 2013. The initial strategic plan of the DMO was conducted after its
introduction and anticipated the commitment of all tourism stakeholders of the city to
the governing board (Municipality of Thessaloniki, prefecture of Thessaloniki,
Hotelier’s chamber, tourist agents etc). The first action plans were the participation of
the DMO to tourism exhibitions worldwide and focus on business and conventional
tourism but also city break travel.
Although the initial master plan described really ambitious targets, the TTOM was not
actually operating until 2009 when the organization started to operate for the first
time. The new governing board of the TTOM consisted of almost all the stakeholders
connected to tourism industry and the Mayor himself became the president of the
DMO. The operational part was left to an executive director but still the DMO lacked
of sufficient budget and staff. The outcome of this rebirth was a new marketing plan
and a new logo-brand of the city that until then was the former ottoman prison called
White Tower. The new logo called “Thessaloniki: Many stories, one heart” tried to
describe the multinational sense of the history of the city and invest in this flair. This
- 37 -
logo is still the branding image of the city, although it is not considered as a
successful one.
Figure 4: “Thessaloniki: Many stories, one heart” logo
Thessaloniki’s DMO never actually operated in professional terms. Lack of
willingness of stakeholders to sincerely participate towards accomplishment of a
common target did not let the organization accomplish its targets. Political
interventions and a culture of free-riding from individual stakeholder’s interests led to
the resign of the general manager of the DMO and the recycle of the governing board
in 2013. As a result no major market or other studies have been conducted for the
development of Thessaloniki at any level. Instead every individual stakeholder makes
its own procurement to extend its own interests from tourism in the city.
Finally Thessaloniki accompanies a major creative industry. According to Creativity
Platform, “a non-profit, collective scheme, seeking to function as an interdisciplinary
platform of exchanging ideas, actions, research and appliances related to the “creative
capital” and the “creative economy” in the city of Thessaloniki” there are more than
180 creative industry businesses operating in Thessaloniki. Moreover a recent
research by the latter NGO proved that the majority of creative industry of the city is
located in a former industrial area of the city center. Thus clustering of creative
businesses exists named as the “Creative Diamond” of the city.
- 38 -
Chapter 5: Research findings
Research findings chapter is the result of the conducted interviews with stakeholders
accepted to answer the questionnaire. The stakeholders interviewed were:
Mr.Spiros Pengas, councilman of Municipality of Thessaloniki and
commissioner in tourism department.
Mrs.Vicky Papadimitriou, general secretary of Thessaloniki Convention
bureau and managing director of “Symvoli” – Conference and cultural
management.
Mr.Panos Remoundos, co-founder of Creativity Platform. Creativity Platform
is a non-profit, collective scheme identifying itself as “seeking to function as
an interdisciplinary platform of exchanging ideas, actions, research and
appliances related to the “creative capital” and the “creative economy” in the
city of Thessaloniki”.
Mrs. Zinovia Stefanidou, managing director of Aegean Airline’s Makedonia
airport station.
Mr. Serafeim Nikolaou, Thessaloniki chamber of commerce representative.
Mr.Alexandros Papoutsis, representative of NOPE, a local youth NGO.
As explained in the previous chapter, the research had three major aims which are
also reflected in the literature review. Accordingly, the research findings will also be
presented according to these aims.
-
Explore the stakeholders' perceptions about the potential of participatory
destination management for managing Thessaloniki, Greece as a tourism
destination.
In this section the research aim was to explore whether the stakeholders have positive
or negative perceptions about participatory destination management and the degree to
which those perceptions match Jamal and Getz’s (1995) six preconditions of effective
collaboration in tourism.
All interviewed stakeholders accepted participatory destination management as a
perquisite for successful tourism development of Thessaloniki. Nevertheless each
stakeholder has its own perception of collaboration in tourism development.
- 39 -
Mrs. Zinovia Stefanidou states: “our company supports the idea of collaborative
actions towards development of Thessaloniki as a competitive tourism destination.
We are ready to commit many of our resources both regarding increase of routes from
our base in Makedonia airport but also in terms of advertising”.
Mr. Panos Remoundos states that platform itself and individual creators also, “are
always available for synergies regarding tourism development of the city. Matchmaking between creators and the tourism industry is a top priority for the platform”.
Mrs. Papadimitriou also argues that “a concrete and effective strategy for place
marketing can only be the result of a broad and collaborative scheme among different
stakeholders, a participatory structure and procedure that embraces and takes under
consideration different aspects, practices, professions”. The latter view is also
supported by willingness of TCB to share some of its authority in tourism
development with the condition of an equal and mutual basis among stakeholders, and
driven by a commonly accepted and sufficiently documented plan for maximising
results.
Most of the interviewees seem to understand the high interdependence of tourism
stakeholders and the need of a shared vision. Mr.Spiros states: “It is true that a high
degree of interdependence exists between stakeholders of Thessaloniki as a tourism
destination. Moreover there is a strong need for a common vision among them. Mayor
himself has tried to initiate a vision of tourism as a common development goal”.
The interviewed stakeholders have almost unanimously stated that there is a need of a
shared vision for development of the city’s tourism product too. The Chamber of
commerce board of director’s representative stated that: “In the absence of a shared
vision free-riders will eventually demolish the common efforts”.
Past experience of stakeholders in collaboration through the current Thessaloniki
Tourism and Marketing Organization (TTMO) is crucial for their perceptions of the
model of the DMO they consider as most effective and legitimate. Mr. Pengas states
that the most effective model of a DMO that would fit in Thessaloniki’s needs and
resources would be the one of a collaborative scheme that wont’ be owned by the
state. “Collaboration with government authorities such as, regional government or the
national tourism organization has proved inefficient. Thus a new collaboration
- 40 -
scheme must be established from the city’s tourism professionals with public
authorities operating as coordinators and intermediates. There is a need for a change
of perception that state is the source of financial and organizational authority”.
In contrary TCB’s representative view is more inclusive regarding the role of DMO.
Mrs.Papadimitriou states that “apart from becoming a point of reference for all
tourism related stakeholders in the city, acting as an overall policy making body and a
coordinating mechanism, the city’s DMO must take under consideration and
incorporate in its strategy different travel forms of tourism. In this framework, DMO
should support TCB by its all its means in order to attract the conference and meeting
industry professionals”. This view is more strategic in sense and accepts the role of
DMO as a coordinator of city’ tourism resources with emphasis in conference and
MICE tourism but without mentioning any exceptions in stakeholders participation.
Financial resources are crucial for a DMO’s operational activities but for legitimating
its processes also. Stakeholders who control financial resources of a DMO literature
shows (Bornhorst et all, 2010) that can apply more authority towards DMO’s
decisions. According to Mr.Pengas a city-tax model (collected from visitors through
accommodation providers) for financing DMO’s operations is more effective.
“Municipality of Thessaloniki budget on tourism is €50,000. This amount of money is
clearly insufficient”, he states.
Behalf of creative industry, Mr.Remoundos insists that the future or even the current
model of the DMO should firstly make an assessment of the present situation
regarding performance of the city as a tourism destination. Thus, they support the idea
of scientific inclusion in DMO’s procedures.
Finally all stakeholders agree that Thessaloniki fits excellent in a city-break tourism
development model. Aegean Airlines representative mentions religious tourism as a
second option due to the fact that a huge market share of orthodox Christians,
originated mainly from Russia and the Balkans, are extremely interested in byzantine
and old-Christian heritage of the city. Chamber of commerce representative supports
city break tourism but giving priority to visitors from Balkan countries but also
Greeks which accounted more than 60% of the total Thessaloniki’s visitation for
many years until a sudden decline in 2010, due to economic recession.
- 41 -
Representative of local community youth NGO states that tourism development in the
city will be ineffective if the local community is excluded from the process.
“Knowledge capital of Thessaloniki regarding tourism management is relatively low.
Thus there is a deep need of investment in tourism studies from local universities. Our
city will become a more competitive destination if tourism professionals are also part
of the local community”, Mr. Papoutsis states.
-
Investigate the degree of stakeholders' familiarization with the notion of
“creative tourism” and their level of willingness to apply resources towards
implementation of it.
Most of the interviewed stakeholders have a relatively mixed idea of what is “creative
tourist” or “creative tourism”.
Mr.Pengas states that “creative tourism is the evolution of cultural tourism which in
turn is the evolution of heritage tourism”. As creative tourists he acknowledges
“people who need to express their creativity through travel, participation in
workshops or exhibitions”. He also indicates that “this form of tourism has a limit.
The city owns an active creative community, but visitation because of creative
economy has a certain limit. We must attract creative tourists mainly from the
Balkans. This was our target promoting the World Music Exhibition (WOMEX) in
Thessaloniki in 2012 and the introduction of the 4 th Biennale. Thessaloniki does not
have the resources to organize events or workshops that will attract creative tourists
outside the Balkan region”.
In contrary Mr. Remoundos, states that “creative tourist is the person who has the
personal background of being fond of creative professions such as graphic and
industrial design, music or architecture and also has the willingness to travel in order
to get in touch with those aspects abroad. Regarding creative tourism, Mr.Remoundos
states that “is the ability of a destination to exploit its creative community in order to
develop a tourism product that will attract creative tourists”.
He also states that Thessaloniki has a unique location to attract the “creative buzz”
but most of all is rich in talented creators. “Especially in music, graphic and industrial
design Thessaloniki can be proud of its creative community. Thus, since “raw
materials” of creative tourism exist, match-making between creators and tourism
- 42 -
industry is the step to follow. In this context creators should also be included in the
decision-making process of the local DMO”. Creativity platform declared also its
commitment to contribute in evolution of creative tourism in Thessaloniki as a deeply
relevant organization
TCB representative argues in a more holistic approach that: “The concept of creative
tourism is based on the developing desire of travellers to get acquainted with and
indulge in a place’s unique cultural identity and features, to experience a destination
rather than just visit it”. She also argues that Thessaloniki “has the privilege of
combining a multicultural history and past (ex monuments, traditions) with an
emerging contemporary cultural production (ex creative sector, cultural events”) and
proposes cultural, festival, musical, culinary and heritage tourism as the most relevant
types of creative tourism for Thessaloniki’s profile.
The rest of the interviewees declared unfamiliar with the terminology.
-
Measure the stakeholders' perceptions about the role of participatory
destination management in implementing creative tourism in Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Creativity platform representative considers participatory destination management the
only way of promoting synergies needed to support initiation of creative tourism in
Thessaloniki. Mr. Remoundos states that ‘if creative tourism is to be supported there
is need of strategic synergies between different stakeholders. Hence, a coordinating
organization must bridge creators and travel industry in order to produce an
assessment of the present situation followed by a series of projects and expertise
transfer that will build a trustful relationship among those worlds. Creativity Platform
is ready to offer project propositions in this context. Since there is no operational
coordinating unit at the moment, implementation of such ideas is a matter of private
sector willingness to support them”.
Mr. Pengas also supports the notion of participatory destination management as a
basic perquisite towards implementing creative tourism since there is no other way to
unite creators with tourism industry and visitors.
Finally Mrs.Papadimitriou supports a more relevant with the literature view of the
role of DMO in supporting creative tourism. She states that: “Apart from a form of
- 43 -
tourism among others, creative tourism is an emerging element in travelling practice,
especially among young people, and a way for tourism practice to re-invent itself.
Furthermore, the defining features of creative tourism, related to cultural identity and
production, set this form of tourism as a unique selling point for any destination and
therefore an important element of any DMO’s strategic planning”. This argument is
closer to the notion of co-creation which is dominant in visitor-destination interplay.
- 44 -
Chapter 6: Conclusions
The current study aimed to attempt a reality check regarding Thessaloniki
stakeholder’s views on participatory destination management, emphasizing in the way
this particular destination management approach could promote evolution of creative
tourism.
The research is not completely representative, due to research bias but it is still
indicative of stakeholder’s approach on participatory destination management. All of
the interviewees agree that participatory destination management is the most effective
development model but their secondary answers indicate that the latter is not an
unconditional perspective.
Although there is a deep understanding of interdependence of tourism stakeholders
most of the interviewees state that they would exclude particular stakeholders of the
collaborative process. The latter standpoint is due to past experience of stakeholders
and existing conflicts among them. A number of stakeholders have stated that
inefficient and bureaucratic public sector is a basic source of inconvenience. Thus
they would prefer to avoid collaboration under a public-law coordinator unit.
Initiation of Thessaloniki Tourism and Marketing Organization as a public-law
institution followed by intra-organizational conflicts over policy issues and allocation
of resources resulted the informal termination of its operations and excessive freeriding policies from stakeholders. This past experience creates bias over willingness
for collaboration between public bodies themselves but mostly between public
tourism institutions (regional government, national tourism organization) and private
sector institutions. In those terms city’s stakeholders acknowledge the common
benefits from participatory destination management but their willingness to
implement it including all relevant stakeholders is almost impossible. Since public
institutions control crucial authority and financial resources, this exclusion may prove
ineffective.
Thessaloniki’s competitive advantage in the tourism market is at huge risk given that
strategic planning is not included in the city’s tourism development agenda. Since
TTMO is not operating, literature propositions of proper governance and
stakeholder’s management approach are not valid, at least for now. Tourism
- 45 -
governance both in terms of structure but also in terms of process is a quest for the
future development of the city. Thus, the current research checks only the intentions
of stakeholders for implementing tourism governance structures due to lack of actual
tourism governance institutions.
Moreover none of the interviewees considered building of community capacity as a
basic perquisite for collaborative actions and strategic planning. As Moscardo (2008)
argues, in the absence of local community capacity for tourism development, true
knowledge over common benefits of collaboration process is absent. Thus absence of
knowledge of common benefits creates free-riding strategies from individual
stakeholders that are totally against participative form of destination development.
In this context, Jamal and Getz’s (1995) preconditions of collaboration for
implementing participatory destination management are only partially confirmed in
Thessaloniki, Greece. Hence, participatory destination management is far from be
implemented from city’s stakeholders although intentions are positive.
The latter conclusion is crucial if implementation of creative tourism is to be
considered. Thessaloniki is relatively rich in creators and creative industry clustering.
On the contrary, research proved that city’s stakeholders are only partially familiar
with notions of “creative tourist” and “creative tourism’ in general. Nevertheless they
also declared their willingness to support incentives promoting match-making
between local creators and the tourism industry.
Moreover, if those incentives were to be implemented they consider a tourism
participatory organization as valid for coordinating match-making between creative
industry and tourism industry. The latter notion confirms literature review remarks on
DMOs role in fostering creative tourism but in the absence of an operating DMO in
Thessaloniki, implementation of creative tourism can only occur in a voluntary basis.
Although stakeholders argue that DMO would be a relevant organization to support
creative tourism, absence of such a tourism governance organization is a major
obstacle towards implementation of creative tourism practices.
Research also proved that Thessaloniki is poor in major intangible resources that,
according to Richards (2012) are basic creative tourism development perquisites.
Proper development planning, knowledge development and networking between
- 46 -
relevant stakeholders should be part of creative tourism destination. In Thessaloniki
the later notions found completely irrelevant with the majority of stakeholders views
and intentions.
Another important assumption is the lack of stakeholder’s attention of active
engagement of visitors in local culture and local lifestyle. This complementary notion
of creative tourism is not part of stakeholder’s knowledge spectrum. Just one of the
interviewed stakeholders declared this notion as important for fostering creative
tourism. For those reasons they propose only creative cultural events as a possible
form of creative tourism implementation strategy.
In conclusion, research confirms that participatory destination management is a strong
perquisite of implementing creative tourism policies and promoting a transfer from
co-production of local tourism products to co-creation of tourism experiences. The
latter notion is confirmed reversibly by the absence of participatory destination
management in Thessaloniki, Greece. More specifically, although there is adequate
cultural and creative capital in Thessaloniki, lack of willingness of stakeholders to
adopt a solid participative destination management model, affects implementation of
creative tourism policies too. In the absence of an active DMO, stakeholders
implement their own agenda which is totally against creative tourism implementation
notion. Thus Thessaloniki’s tourism product is downgraded and stands nowhere on
the continuum between co-production and co-creation of tourism experiences
(Chathoth et al., 2013). Tourism stakeholders don’t chose to implement synergies in
order to co-produce tourism products but in contrary chose to adopt free-rider
strategies which, according to literature, can prove rather ineffective. Finally the
absence of collaborative culture is deterrent of implementing creative tourism projects
that would highlight a degree of co-creation between visitors and producers.
Further research can be conducted by exploiting the views of more stakeholders. The
current research, due to time constraints, evaluated a small number of stakeholders
relevant with research aims. Thus, a study that would include the total of
Thessaloniki’s tourism stakeholders would add more in research.
Contribution of the current research in terms of recommendations is connected with
tourism governance and strategic planning of Thessaloniki, Greece. Creative tourism
has proved an effective tool for creating and sustaining a destination’s competitive
- 47 -
advantage. Especially for destinations rich in creative economy actors the latter notion
is even more effective. But tangible factors are not enough. Although Thessaloniki is
relatively rich in “creative infrastructure”, lack of intangible factors of tourism
development such as initiation of strategic tourism planning and tourism governance
institutions are important trade-offs. Change of culture in terms of collaboration and
introduction of a formal DMO based on modern tourism governance without
exclusions can be the first step. It is then in DMO’s operational willingness to act as a
legitimate facilitator between creators, tourism industry and visitors in order to move
Thessaloniki closer to the co-creation edge of the relevant continuum and thus create
a competitive
- 48 -
Chapter 7: References
1.
Bornhorst, T., Brent Ritchie, J.R., Sheehan, L. (2010) Determinants of
tourism success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of
stakeholders' perspectives, Tourism Management, 31 (5), pp. 572-589
2.
Brace, I., 2004. Questionnaire Design 1st ed. USA: Kogan page.
3.
Cevat Tosun, (2005) Stages in the emergence of a participatory tourism
development approach in the Developing World, Geoforum, Volume 36,
Issue 3, Pages 333-352
4.
Cho, B. H. (2000), Destination in J.Jafari (Ed). Encyclopedia of Tourism,
Routledge, London and New York.
5.
Ciasullo, M.V., Carrubbo L. (2011) – “Tourist systems co-creation
exchanges: service research and system thinking insights for destination
competitiveness", in Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F. (a cura di), System
Theory and Service Science: Integrating three perspectives in a new service
agenda, Giannini, Napoli, 14-17 giugno
6.
Daniel Muijs (2004). Doing Quantitative Research in Education. SAGE
Publications Ltd
7.
De Bruyn, C., Alonso, A.F. (2012) Tourism destination governance:
Guidelines for implementation, Bridging Tourism Theory and Practice, 4, pp.
221-242.
8.
Den Dekker, T. and Tabbers, M. (2012) From Creative Crowds to Creative
Tourism: A search for creative tourism in small and medium sized cities.
Journal of Tourism Consumption and PracticeVolume 4, 129-132
9.
Donald G. Reid, Heather Mair, Wanda George, (2004) Community Tourism
Planning: A Self-Assessment Instrument, Annals of Tourism Research,
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 623-639,
10. Enjolras, B. (2009) A governance-structure approach to voluntary
organizations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38 (5), pp. 761-783
11. Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the creative Class: And How It’s Transforming
Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
- 49 -
12. Francesca d'Angella, Frank M. Go, (2009) Tale of two cities’ collaborative
tourism marketing: Towards a theory of destination stakeholder assessment,
Tourism Management, Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 429-440
13. Freeman R. (1984), Strategic management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston:
Pitman.
14. Frey, O. (2009). Creativity of Places as a Resource for Cultural Tourism. In
Maciocco, G. &Serreli, S. (eds) Enhancing the City: New Perspectives for
Tourism and Leisure Heidelberg:Springer, pp. 135-154
15. Fyall A, Garrod B, (2005), Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach,
Channel View Publications, Clevedon .
16. Graham, J., Amos, B. and Plumptre, T. (2003), Principles for good
governance in the 21st century. Policy Brief No. 15. Institute on Governance,
Ontario, Canada.
17. Hall, C. M. (2005) Tourism: Rethinking the social science of mobility,
Harlow: Prentice-Hall.
18. Healey, P (1996) 'Consensus-building across difficult divides: new
approaches
to
collaborative
strategy
making', Planning
Practice
&
Research 11(2) 207-16.
19. Klausen, SH (2010), 'The Notion of Creativity Revisited: A Philosophical
Perspective on Creativity Research' Creativity Research Journal, vol 22, no. 4,
pp. 347-360
20. Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008), ―Key strategies for
the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new
technology-based services, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 474-491.
21. Landry, Charles; Bianchini, Franco (1995), The Creative City, Demos
22. Laws E., Richins H., Agrusa J., Scott N. (2011). Tourist destination
governance: Practice, Theory and Issues, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
23. Longhurst, R. (2009). Interviews: in-depth and semi-structured. International
Encyclopaedia of Human Geography. Elsevier, Oxford, pp.580-584.
- 50 -
24. Lorn R. Sheehan, J.R. Brent Ritchie (2005), Destination Stakeholders
Exploring Identity and Salience, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 32,
Issue 3, Pages 711-734
25. Meuleman L. (2006), Internal Meta-Governance as a New Challenge for
Management Development in Public Administrations; 2006 EFMD
Conference Post Bureaucratic Management, Aix-en-Provence, 2006.
26. Middleton V., Fyall A., Morgan M. (2009). Marketing in travel and tourism,
Routledge
27. Mitchell R., B. Agle, D. Wood (1997), Toward a Theory of Stakeholder
Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really
Counts. The Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886
28. Moscardo
G.
(2008),
Building Community Capacity for
Tourism
Development, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
29. Pearce. D. G. (1992). Tourist organizations, London: Longman
30. Pine, B. J. II, and Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
31. Prakash Chathoth, Levent Altinay, Robert James Harrington, Fevzi Okumus,
Eric S.W. Chan, (2013) Co-production versus co-creation: A process based
continuum in the hotel service context, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Volume 32, Pages 11-20
32. Provan, K.G., & Kenis, P.N. (2008). Modes of network governance:
Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252
33. R. Longhurst, (2009) Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured, In International
Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift,
Elsevier, Pages 580-584,
34. Rhodes, M. (1961), ‘Analysis of Creativity’, Phi Delta Kappan 42(7), 305–
310
35. Richards G. (2009). Tourism development trajectories-From culture to
creativity? Paper presented to the Asia-Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture
and Tourism, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea.
- 51 -
36. Richards, G. & Raymond, C. (2000). Creative tourism. ATLAS news 23, 16 –
20.
37. Richards, G. (2012) Tourism, Creativity and Creative Industries. Paper
presented at the conference Creativity and Creative Industries in Challenging
Times, NHTV Breda, November 2012
38. Richards, G.Creativity and tourism. The state of the art (2011) Annals of
Tourism Research, 38 (4), pp. 1225-1253
39. Ritchie, J. and J. Lewis (2003).Qualitative research practice : a guide
for social science students and researchers London: SAGE
40. Ritchie, J.R.B. and G.I. Crouch (2003). The Competitive Destination: A
Sustainable Tourism Perspective, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
41. Robert F. Lusch, Stephen L. Vargo, Matthew O’Brien (2007) Competing
through service: Insights from service-dominant logic, Journal of Retailing,
Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 5-18
42. Rutten, R. & Gelissen, J. (2008) Technology, Talent, Diversity and the
Wealth of European Regions,European Planning Studies Vol. 16, No. 7, 9851006
43. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003) Research methods for
business students, 5th ed., Harlow, Pearson Education
44. Savage G.T, Nix T.W, Whitehead C.J & Blair J.D (1991). Strategies for
Assessing and
ManagingOrganizational
Stakeholders;Academy
of
Management Executive;5(2):61–75.
45. Scott, A. J. (2010). Cultural economy and the creative field of the city.
Geografiska Annaler Series B, Human Geography, 92, pp. 115-130
46. Sigala, M. & Marinidis, D. (2009). Exploring the transformation of tourism
firms’ operations and business models through the use of web map services.
European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009
(EMCIS 2009).
47. Sigala, M. (2009). Destination Management Systems: a reality check in the
Greek tourism industry. 16th International Conference on Information
- 52 -
Technology and Travel &Tourism, ENTER 2009 "eTourism: Dynamic
Challenges for Travel and Tourism”
48. Sigala, M., Marinidis, D. (2012) E-Democracy and web 2.0: A framework
enabling DMOs to engage stakeholders in collaborative destination
management, Tourism Analysis, 17 (2), pp. 105-120
49. Tazim B. Jamal, Donald Getz (1995) Collaboration theory and community
tourism planning, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages
186-204
50. Tazim B. Jamal, Donald Getz (1994) The environment-community symbiosis;
a case for collaborative tourism planning, Journal of Sustainable tourism 2(3),
pp.152-173
51. UNWTO (2013). UNWTO Tourism Highlights Edition 2013. Available:
http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights13_e
n_hr.pdf.
52. Victoria M. Waligo, Jackie Clarke, Rebecca Hawkins (2013) Implementing
sustainable
tourism:
A
multi-stakeholder
involvement
management
framework, Tourism Management, Volume 36, Pages 342-353
53. WTO (2007). A practical guide to tourism destination management, Madrid.
- 53 -