Complexity in Tourism Policy

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. xx, No. xx, pp. xxx–xxx, 20110160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.007www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

COMPLEXITY IN TOURISM POLICIESA Cognitive Mapping Approach

Ioanna FarsariTechnological Educational Institute of Crete, Greece

Richard W. ButlerUniversity of Strathclyde, UK

Edith SzivasUniversity of Surrey, UK

Abstract: The paper discusses a study of policies for sustainable tourism developed at allfour policy making levels in Greece using a complex systems approach. Complexity was exam-ined between policy issues i.e. the elements constituting policy considerations. The mentalmodels of policy makers were elicited, built and analyzed by applying appropriately devel-oped cognitive mapping methods to reveal key policy considerations, valued outcomes andperceptions of complexity. Individual map analysis and comparisons of policy making at eachlevel revealed greater structural differences than similarities. These findings indicate a com-plex domain with various ramifications perceived in different ways by individual policy mak-ers. Despite structural differences, policies at all levels in Greece contained a clear focus onthe economic sustainability of tourism, reflecting a rather parochial perspective on sustain-able tourism. Keywords: sustainable, policy, cognitive mapping, complexity,Greece. � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Complexity is being increasingly used as an organizing notion to ad-dress and study non-linearities inherent in tourism systems (Abel, 2003;Baggio, 2008; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Faulkner & Russell, 2002;Jamal, Borges, & Figueiredo, 2004; McDonald, 2009; McKercher, 1999;Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002; Walker, Anderies, Kinzig, & Ryan, 2006;Zahra & Ryan, 2007). Tourism policy-making is a complex phenome-non involving various actors and institutions in the negotiation ofpower distribution and organizational complexity (Stevenson, Airey,

Ioanna Farsari is an Assistant Professor at the Technological Educational Institute-Crete.Her research interests include policy, sustainability, indicators, knowledge representation andenhancement. (P.O. Box 1939, Estavromenos, 71004 Heraklion, Crete, Greece. Email<[email protected]>). Richard Butler is Emeritus Professor at the University ofStrathclyde. His research interests include destination development, seasonality, carryingcapacity, tourism in peripheral areas. Edith Szivas is Senior Lecturer at the University ofSurrey. Her research interests include tourism development and policy, human resourcesdevelopment, poverty reduction.

1

Please cite this article in press as: Farsari, I., et al. Complexity in tourism policies. Annals of Tourism

Research (2011), doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.007

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.007


2 I. Farsari et al. / Annals of Tourism Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

& Miller, 2008). Moreover, the contested political character of sustain-able development with its meaning along with its ethical considerationsstill being debated in policy, industry and academic circles, has com-plex ramifications for decision making (Macbeth, 2005). Similarly, sus-tainable tourism has long been shown to be a malleable concept, fittingdifferent perceptions and adjustable enough to have different meaningto different people or groups (Butler, 1999). Ethical stances and ideol-ogies also influence the way that sustainable tourism is interpreted,resulting in many different perceptions of the term (Bramwell, Henry,Jackson, & van der Straaten, 1996). Complexity in sustainable tourismpolicies is also visible through the various issues and actions which haveto be managed simultaneously to achieve a holistic approach integrat-ing social, environmental and economic dimensions (Walker, Greiner,McDonald, & Lyne, 1999, p. 60). Sustainable tourism policy is what hasbeen called in the planning literature a complex, ‘messy’ or ‘wicked’problem, characterized by interrelatedness of policy areas, with impli-cations from one spreading into other (Hall, 2000). Complex messyproblems involve different value systems with no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ solu-tion but rather different paths to often unpredicted outcomes (Rittel &Webber, 1973). As such complex messy problems do not follow the ra-tional science paradigm, their outcomes cannot be predicted with cer-tainty and it is only through studying and understanding policies thatinsight and understanding of implications can be gained (Mysiak,Giupponi, & Rosato, 2005).

Complexity studies in tourism policies have concentrated on organi-zational complexity and actors’ relations. Interorganizational relationsand collaborative policy making have formed a field of inquiry in tour-ism policy research (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Dredge & Jenkins,2003; Lovelock, 2001; Vernon, Essex, Pinder, & Curry, 2005). Policynetworks and actors’ relations have also attracted a large share of re-search interest in complexity and tourism policy during the last decadeto explore the factors that influence policymaking (Bramwell, 2006;Bramwell & Meyer, 2007; Dredge, 2006; Pforr, 2006; Scott, Baggio, &Cooper, 2008; Tyler & Dinan, 2001). Most of these studies draw fromsocial science related theories such as social representation theory, so-cial constructivism, interorganizational collaboration theory and net-work theory, or political economy theory. Their commoncharacteristic is that tourism policy-making is seen as a social activitywith the focus being placed on examining how actors (institutions,groups, organizations, individuals) relate to each other, or on the fac-tors that influence perceptions of policies. Although complexity is re-vealed in these studies between the actors and the way they interactin complex networks of power, almost no studies have examined com-plex relationships between the policy issues which form the policy con-siderations (Farsari, Butler, & Prastacos, 2007). This research instead,draws from complexity theory as an emerging framework for inquiryto examine how policy issues, i.e. the elements constituting policy con-siderations, are related to each other, and how complex these policiesare as perceived by those directly involved in their formulation. It




I. Farsari et al. / Annals of Tourism Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3

examines tourism policies in Greece in order to better understandintentions as expressed in valued outcomes (goals), complexity, andadaptive processes perceived by policy makers.

Complexity theory is used to describe situations where simple linearmodels cannot adequately address the complex relationships found ina system as a result of large numbers of interacting elements (Roe,1998). Holling (2001, p. 391) argues that there is a requisite level ofsimplicity behind complexity that, if identified, can lead to understand-ing. Thus, complexity of living systems of people and nature is not amatter of a random association of a large number of interacting fac-tors, but a smaller number of controlling processes. These differentperspectives of complexity reflect the differences between chaos andcomplexity theory. Chaos is not used in its everyday sense but ratherin its deterministic one, meaning that there are some simple processesbehind certain magnified, unpredictable phenomena. That is, chaostheory focuses on the manner that simple systems result in complex,unpredictable behaviors and manifests that there is some underlyingorder waiting to be discovered (Cilliers, 1998; Mitchell, 2009).Complexity, as described by complex systems on the other hand,comes about as a result of a large number of interacting componentsand how they can lead to well-organized and possibly predictablebehaviors (Baggio, 2008, p. 7). Chaos theory is related to the grandidea of a unified world, to the universality of that world, while complex-ity is more related to postmodernism and the idea of several local‘realities’ which can hardly combine into a single unified reality(Cilliers, 1998).

Chaos and complexity theory have been used interchangeably in theliterature (Eve, Horsfall, & Lee, 1997; Faulkner & Russell, 2002;McDonald, 2009). For Manson (2001) the different perspectives oncomplexity are nothing more than different divisions in complexity re-search namely, algorithmic (related to mathematical complexity theoryand information theory), deterministic (related to chaos theory) andaggregate complexity (emphasizing holism and synergy between alarge number of elements). According to Manson, deterministic com-plexity is characterized by features often used to describe chaotic sys-tems such as initial conditions and the butterfly effect, bifurcation,and feedback. Aggregate complexity on the other hand, is related tocomplex systems theory. Complex systems are characterized by thefollowing properties (Cilliers, 1998; Manson, 2001; Mitchell, 2009;Norberg & Cumming, 2008):

i) Relationships: complex systems consist of a large number of relation-ships between entities which are most often from the immediatesurrounding thus lacking an overarching control or unifiedpurpose;

ii) Internal structure: these local interactions dictate that sub-systems ofclose entities are formed within the system;

iii) Open system: interactions are apparent also with the environment ofthe system making it an open system;





iv) Learning and memory: complex systems are capable of processinginformation and storing it as experience in forms of relationshipsresulting in a great diversity;

v) Self-organization and adaptivity: this diversity is essential in order tochange and adapt when necessary, and self-organization refers tothe changing of internal structure to better adapt to its environ-ment. Thus change and evolution are inherent in complex systems;and finally,

vi) Emergence: non-linear relationships between entities result in newemergent properties of the system, it is a form of synergism makingthe whole more than the sum of its parts

These properties of complex systems are used as a framework of in-quiry in this research to examine complexity between policy issues. Tofulfill this, the research examines the mental models of policy makersusing an appropriately developed cognitive mapping method.

Mental models have long been used for policy analysis and the man-agement of complex problems (Axelrod, 1976a; Rosenhead & Mingers,2001). Mental models refer to assumptions and beliefs that enable indi-viduals to make inferences and predictions and can be represented inmany forms such as tokens, spatial relationships between entities, andtemporal or causal relations among events (Chen & Lee, 2003). Mentalsimulations help decision makers imagine a course of action in a spe-cific situation, evaluate its adequacy, and formulate policies (Klein,1989). Cognitive mapping is a well established method for eliciting,representing, analyzing and comparing mental models offering manybenefits in dealing with complex problems, in understanding beliefs,in analyzing those beliefs and communicating qualitative information,values and perceptions (Eden, 2004). However, very little use has beenmade of cognitive mapping in examining complexity in tourism poli-cies and the views of policy makers to date.

TOURISM POLICY IN GREECE

Public Governance in the Study Area

Government in Greece has four distinct levels: central government,regional administrations, prefecture authorities, and municipalitiesand communes. At the national level, the Ministry of Tourism Develop-ment has been the legal body responsible for the formulation of tour-ism policy since 2004 (Government Gazette 187//11.10.2004). Itsupervises a number of institutions also involved in policy formulationand implementation, including the Greek National Tourism Organisa-tion (GNTO), the Organization of Tourism Education and Training,Tourism Development Co., and Agrotouristiki SA. Regional, prefectureand municipal authorities are characterized respectively by the third,second and first tier of local governments. The thirteen regionaladministrative districts (each comprised of a number of prefectures),are each headed by a regional governor, appointed by the Minister




Figure 1. The Research Area


of the Interior. Each prefecture is headed by a prefect (elected by di-rect popular vote), and is further divided into municipalities and com-munes (http://www.kedke.gr/generalData_english.htm).

Each level is represented in this research: the Municipality of Herso-nissos represents the respective level of policy making, Hersonissos be-longs to the Prefecture of Heraklion, representing the prefectoriallevel of policy making, while the Region of Crete stands for the regio-nal level. The national level is represented by the Ministry of Tourismand its supervised Institutions. The geographic relation of these areasis presented in Figure 1.

The Significance of Tourism in the Study Area

Greek tourism represents an important share of international andEuropean tourism, with approximately 66 million overnight stays in al-most 580 thousand hotel beds (NSSG, 2009). Greece receives 3.6% ofthe European and 1.9% of the international tourism arrivals and isranked tenth among European countries (WTO, 2009). Crete is oneof thirteen regions in Greece, and tourism is the most important eco-nomic activity on the island. In 2008 Crete accounted for almost onefourth of all hotel beds and all international tourist overnight staysin Greece with 2.3 million arrivals in hotels and approximately 16 mil-lion overnight stays (excluding auxiliary accommodation) (NSSG,2009).



http://www.kedke.gr/generalData_english.htm



Crete has four Prefectures: Heraklion, Lassithi, Rethymno and Cha-nia. Heraklion contains almost half of the population of Crete. Tour-ism in Heraklion has displayed a constant growth with almost half oftotal beds in Crete and almost six million overnight stays in hotels.The municipality of Hersonissos is located on the north coast of Crete,about 25 km from Heraklion airport. Tourism development here be-gan during the early stages of tourism development in Greece andexperienced one of the fastest growth rates in Greece (Chiotis and Coc-cossis, 2000 after Terkenli, 2000). Growth rates continued to beremarkable and during the period of 1991–2005 hotel beds almostdoubled in Hersonissos to over 30,000 (excluding auxiliary accommo-dation) by 2005.

Methodology

Only a short report of the methodology is included here, as a de-tailed description of the methodology used in the present researchmay be found in Farsari, Butler, and Szivas (2010) which outlines allthe considerations and assumptions made when developing a cognitivemapping method for sustainable tourism policy.

Cognitive Maps. Cognitive maps have been used to study how peopleunderstand their environment and construct spatial information.According to Farsari et al. (2010) this emphasis on spatial cognitionof the environment may be found in many definitions of cognitivemaps (see for example Kitchin, 1994). However, the use of map-likeconstructs has been transferred to other domains to visualize how peo-ple conceptualize, simplify and make sense of complex problems (Huff& Fletcher, 1990). Cognitive maps are represented as a net of nodes(concepts) linked by arrows (relationships) and this network revealsan individual’s perception of the problem examined (Eden, 2004).Concepts are the elements of the cognitive map and can include agreat variety of entities with varying degrees of abstraction (Huff &Fletcher, 1990). The meaning of every concept is contextual and is pro-vided by the relationships (links) of that concept to other concepts.The relationships are represented by arrows pointing from one con-cept to another to the direction of the relationship. Thus, a link be-tween concepts A and B (A fi B) may be read either as ‘A may havean effect on B’ (or ‘A may lead to B’) or as ‘A in order to achieve B’(Farsari et al., 2010). Cognitive maps’ ability to reduce and analyzethe domain investigated in its constituting elements allowing a holisticsynthesis of an individual’s view (Huff & Fletcher, 1990, p. 404) makesthem very useful for structuring and exploring complex problems andcan help decision makers to make better inferences of nonlinearity in-volved in a system (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001). When used in policyanalysis, cognitive maps serve to model complexity, refer to local policyfeatures, reveal inconsistencies, interdependencies and key issues, andthus can be used as a decision making tool (Eden & Ackermann, 2004).





Cognitive Mapping to Study Public Policy and Tourism Policy. Axelrod(1976a) was one of the first to use cognitive maps in policy analysis.In his seminal work Axelrod used text based cognitive mapping tounderstand the constructs politicians use to make decisions and conse-quently help them become aware of these processes in order to im-prove decision making. More recent research includes theimprovement of auditing tasks planning in public organizations(Ackermann & Eden, 2001), the empowerment of management teamsto analyze and manage complexities in the UK Home Office PrisonDepartment (Eden & Ackermann, 2004), the exploration of the deci-sion-making process in a public sector performance appraisal system(Ahmad & Ali, 2004), and the enhancement of citizens’ participationin a strategic forest management planning process (Hjortso, 2004).Cognitive mapping in tourism studies include research by Walmsleyand Jenkins (1992), Young (1999) and Lankford Scholl, Pfister,Lankford and Williams (2005), who examined visitors’ spatial under-standing of the environment in order to better study tourist behavior,with implications for the development and promotion of tourism facil-ities and services. Cognitive mapping in the tourism field has also beenused to elicit perceptions of industry executives to reveal complexity inorganizational decision making (Costa & Teare, 2000; Xiang &Formica, 2007). Hay and Yeoman (2005) used cognitive mapping ina tourism policy context to evaluate scenarios and formulate strategiesfor tourism development in Scotland. Copland, Garnham and Canava(2004) also used it in a similar context to study scholars’ strategic rec-ommendations or sustainable tourism in Queenstown in New Zealand.However none of these researchers has used cognitive mapping toexamine complexity in tourism policies.

Method

Various cognitive mapping techniques have been developed to elicitand represent knowledge for various purposes. The two most widelyused techniques are the Repertory Grid Techniques (RGTs) and lad-dering; As noted in Farsari et al. (2010, p. 151) RGTs have been usedwidely in Self-Questioning (Self-Q) methodology, and laddering tech-niques have been used in Strategic Options Development and Analysis(SODA) methodology RGT was developed by Kelly in 1955 within cog-nitive psychology, in order to develop instruments that would reduceresearcher bias and represent an individual’s cognitive construct sys-tem, and since then many variations have been developed such, thattoday the term indicates a set of related methods rather than a singlemethod (Reger, 1990, p. 302). RGTs are very popular as an elicitationmethod in cognitive mapping (e.g. Bougon, Baird, Komocar, & Ross,1990; Daniels, de Chernatony, & Johnson, 1995). Repertory grids,although a well structured approach, can be time and labor intensive(Brown, 1992) which may lead to unwillingness by executives and polit-ical elites to participate (Daniels et al., 1995, p. 978) while, they provide





rather short lists of concepts, most often predetermined by the re-searcher (Jenkins, 1998).

Laddering is another technique used to elicit concepts and theirinterrelationships, originally developed by Hinkle in 1965 to elicitsuper-ordinate constructs which may indicate values. Laddering worksby asking the interviewee questions such as ‘why?’ or ‘what makes it likethat’ (Brown, 1992, p. 293). In this way, all ramifications of thought areexplored and both ‘explanations’ and ‘consequences’ are provided.This method has been widely used in the SODA method in cognitivemapping. This method was developed by Eden and associates to man-age complex problems (Eden, 2004; Eden & Ackermann, 2001). Incontrast to the tightly structured nature of RGTs, SODA allows rela-tively unstructured elicitation, which permits concepts to be revealedfrom causal links, compared to the necessity of linking predeterminedgroups of concepts in RGTs. This allows interrelationships to becomethe focus of the SODA approach (Jenkins, 1998, p. 239). This ap-proach in cognitive mapping has been used extensively in problemstructuring and decision making in the private sector and also withina public policy context (Ahmad & Ali, 2004; Copland et al., 2004; Eden& Ackermann, 2004).

A variation of the SODA approach to cognitive mapping was appliedhere as it is a method used before for public policy analysis, it is adjust-able to single individual interviews which provide rich qualitative infor-mation, and has an emphasis on the interrelationships. Moreimportantly, SODA is also well documented and supported by specialsoftware that allows the drawing and detailed analysis of the cognitivemaps. The cognitive mapping method used in this research was basedon face-to-face, semi-structured, in-depth interviews.

Interviews

Most often ‘policy makers’ are not known in advance and may in-volve actors participating in the policy process to different degrees(Colebatch, 1998). Colebatch identified authority as a basis for partic-ipation as it makes it easier for some people to participate in the pro-cess. Thus, the top of the hierarchy was targeted in this study to obtainthe most legitimized views. Key persons in the formulation of policies,elected representatives, appointed advisors, executives and the publicofficials for tourism at the four different administrative levels in Greecewere sought to provide their insights on sustainable tourism policies.Initially one interviewee was identified as a key informant at each le-vel—generally the individual at the top of the respective organization’shierarchy—who would also recommend other key informants in asnowball—or chain—sampling technique. The Mayor, members ofthe tourism committee, the Executive General Secretary of the Ministryof Tourism were among the interviewees in this research.

Six interviews were conducted in the Municipality of Hersonissos,three interviews in the Prefecture of Heraklion, three interviews atthe regional level (Crete) and five interviews at the national level




Figure 2. A Sample Cognitive Map


(Ministry of Tourism and supervised institutions), accounting for a totalof seventeen interviews. All individuals were initially contacted with aletter providing information on the purpose of the research and therole of their own contribution. Interviews were conducted betweenNovember 2005 and February 2006 at the interviewees’ locations inAthens, Heraklion and Hersonissos. Interviews ranged from 30 minutesto 2 hours, with the usual duration of just over an hour. Respondentswere free to talk and laddering questions were used, where appropriate,to elicit issues and relationships. Questions such as ‘‘Why is this consid-ered important in the tourism policy?’’ and ‘‘How is this achieved atpresent?’’ were used to elicit interrelationships and move the chainsof arguments up (thus acquiring superordinate concepts and goals)and down (thus acquiring means and strategies) respectively. Intervie-wees were encouraged to talk specifically about concrete policies oftheir own agency at the time of interview rather than their personal sug-gestions and recommendations. This action oriented format of elicitedperceptions aimed at building models of real-world policies.

This approach allowed for both concepts and links to be provided bythe respondents. Following the interviews, each interview was tran-scribed, coded and redrawn on a computer using special cognitivemapping software (Decision Explorer Version 3.3). The redrawn mapwas sent to each interviewee together with a letter offering advice onhow to ‘read’ the map, asking them for any changes or corrections theywanted to make. Two interviewees returned comments which were in-cluded in the final maps analyzed. An example of the resulting individ-ual cognitive maps is shown in Figure 2.

Data Analysis

Analysis performed here was based on methods and comparisons asdescribed by Eden and Associates (see Eden, 2004; Eden & Ackermann,





2001; Eden, Ackermann, & Cropper, 1992) using Decision Explorersoftware. First, synonymous concepts were identified to facilitate latercomparisons across individual maps at each policy level. Individualpolicy makers’ maps were analyzed as to both their content and struc-ture using Decision Explorer’s functions for hierarchical sets (calledhiesets), potency of concepts, domain and centrality analysis, cluster,and loop analysis. Hieset analysis involves the identification of all theconcepts in a map that contribute to the achievement of a goal andthe exploration of these paths. The number of concepts constitutingeach hieset is indicative of the importance of a goal in an individual’scognition and, therefore, large hiesets reveal the most valued out-comes. Articulated goals along with the number of concepts at eachmap are presented in Table 1. Subsequently, hiesets of synonymousgoals among individual maps were examined and compared to revealsimilarities and differences. Hiesets were compared as to their extent(number of concepts included), the number of synonymous conceptsand their structure.

Potency analysis revealed those concepts that supported the achieve-ment of more than one goal. Potency analysis is based on the assump-tion that the more goals a concept supports, the more potent thisconcept is. This makes potency analysis particularly apt to reveal impor-tant intervention opportunities as they may support more that one de-sired outcomes (Farsari et al., 2010). Domain and centrality analyses ofcognitive maps revealed what is considered in the SODA method as keyissues in policies. These analyses are based on the premise that themore the concepts linked directly or indirectly in a concept—eitheras input or output links—the more important the concept is. Domainanalysis calculates the total number of input and output arrows of theimmediate surrounding of a concept; in other words, the arrows di-rectly linking into or out of that concept. Centrality analysis goes be-yond this by taking domain analysis a step further to consider thewider context beyond the immediate domain (Eden et al., 1992).The concepts ranked highly in domain and centrality analyses weresubsequently compared as to their content across individual maps.Consequently, those which were synonymous in more than one map,were considered to be well established key issues of policies and arepresented in Table 2.

Cluster analysis revealed groups of related concepts representingthemes of policies within a cognitive map. Additionally, the numberof links between clusters gave an indication of the importance of a pol-icy area. Clusters with many links to other clusters are considered morecritical than those on the periphery, and indicative of cognitive com-plexity (Eden and Ackermann, 1998, p. 203). Loop analysis was usedto identify both negative and positive feedback mechanisms, whichare considered important in policy formulation. The results of clusterand loop analyses are not specifically listed, though those of impor-tance are integrated with the findings discussed. Findings from theanalysis of individual maps were compared at each policy making levelto reveal similarities and differences in perceptions of tourism policybut did not involve cross-level comparisons. Similarities found among




Table 1. Policy Goals in Individual Maps for Each Policy Making Level

Municipality of Hersonissos Prefecture of Heraklion Region of Crete National Government

Sustain tourist activity in the

long term (65) (33) (30)

Keep business working (34) Quality of services offered (23) Release Greek tourism from

dependence on package tourism

(52)

Attract new quality market

segments rather than beach

nightlife tourists (64) (3)

Rural development (32) Sustain tourism resource base (20) Sustainable economic development

(44)

Support local community

income (economic benefits)

(41)

Greater turnover (24) Shift direction to tourism in the

hinterlands rather than mass

beach tourism (19)

Sustain tourism development (41)

(15)

Avoid economic loss (40) Compensate for loss from

declining numbers of mass

tourism (21)

Promote Crete as a destination

rather than a fragmented image

of prefectures (9)

Environmental protection (37) (8)

Get what the area deserves

rather than alcoholic

tourism (35)

Establish conditions supportive

to tourism (19)

Sustain income from tourism in the

region (7)

Conserve quality characteristics of

tourism product (22)

Avoid bad image and bad

reputation of the destination

(28) (3) (8) (7)

Promote tourism (18) (8) Employment generation (7) Welfare of population (22)

Consider mass beach

recreational tourism as one

of the forms of thematic

tourism (22)

Reduce pressures on mass

destinations (17)

Extend tourism season (5) Contribute to regional development

(19) (12)

Improve aesthetics (17) Complement existent mass

tourism product (16)

Undisturbed flow of tourists from

international economic and

political fluctuations (14)

Protect the environment (16)

(6) (8)

Sustain tourism’s resource base

(13)

Good (continuous off season)

operation of tourism sector (14)

(13)

Improve quality of life (15) (7) Business sustainability (12) Develop tourism in areas with other

than sun-sea properties (e.g.

mountainous) (13)

Support tourism employment

(12)

Attract tourists off beach season

(12)

Reduce dependence on tour-

operators (13)

Support the market (12) Offer recreational opportunities

to Prefecture’s inhabitants

(12)

Tourism enterprises’ sustainability

(11)

Locals enjoy a lively place (12) Save resources for future

generations (11)

Develop alternative forms of

tourism (e.g. rural, convention,

wellness) (10)

Need for rest after an intensive

tourism season (12)

Increase competitiveness (10) Develop special infrastructure (e.g.

marinas, golf) (10)

Promote other characteristics

rather than night life (12)

Increase visitors numbers (8) Retain rural population (8)

Increase locals’ satisfaction (8) Protect the environment (8) Improve and modernize existing

tourism product (7)

Safeguard the undisturbed

operation of the market (8)

Locals’ quality of life (6) Attract international investors (7)

Act as a good practice model to

‘educate’ entrepreneurs (7)

Support tourism development in

areas with little economic

development (6)

Promote cultural/historic

heritage and tradition (7)

Develop the Region as a destination

(3)

Develop alternative forms of

tourism development (7)

Support financially weak population

to take vacations (2)

Visitors respect the place (6) Promote unique Greek products (2)

Provide economic benefits in

the broader area (5)

Reveal beaches (5)

Off peak season tourism

development (5)

Control legitimacy of food &

beverage establishments (3)

Control urban-sprawl (3)

Manage emergencies (3)

Control the coast and platforms

(3)

Product quality improvement

(2)

Cleanliness of public space (2)

The number of concepts in individual maps appear in parenthesis.

Goals with multiple parentheses have appeared in more than one map with the respective sets of concepts.





Table 2. Key Policy Issues in Individual Maps for Each Policy Making Level

Municipality ofHersonissos

Prefecture ofHeraklion

Region of Crete National Government

Develop special interestthematic tourism

Promote tourism Restrictions forbuilding newaccommodation incontrolled tourismareas

New investments ofhigh quality(improve quality oftourismestablishments)

Wide consultation withinterest groups

Provideinfrastructure

Check legitimacy oftourism enterprises’specifications duringconstruction

Reduce seasonality

Reveal variety ofnatural resources

Promote inexhibitions bothabroad and inGreece

Licensing of newtourism enterprisesand accommodation

Develop specializedtourism

Develop conventiontourism

Promote inspecializedexhibitions

Check accommodationspecifications

Exploit strategicadvantage of varietyand quantity ofnatural andcultural resources

Infrastructureimprovement

Protect naturalenvironment andcultural/historicheritage

Enrich and diversifythe tourismproduct

Attract quality touriststo address new, moredemandinginternational marketsegments than beachnightlife tourists

Check tourismprofessions’specifications

Product qualityimprovement

Manage trafficcongestion

Support tourism’scompetitiveness

Supportentrepreneurship(new investments)

Show a differentimproved image onthe beach front

Financial support Quality tourism(visitors withmedium to highincome and specialinterests)

Protect theenvironment

Develop soft forms oftourism in thehinterlands andespeciallymountainous anddisadvantageousareas

Improve quality ofservices offered

Promotion (mainly ofculture and Cretandiet)

Reveal Crete’s strategicadvantages

Use internetInform on trails






individual maps at each policy making level revealed the establishednotions among policy makers, while differences indicated ramificationsand relationships not perceived similarly by all interviewees.

Tourism Policies in Greece

The results of the research are presented below and discussed to re-veal differences and similarities between individual policy makers’maps at each level and to highlight the relevance of policies tosustainability.

The Municipality of Hersonissos. The Municipality of Hersonissosshowed very few synonymous goals among individual cognitive maps.There were only five out of thirty nine formulated goals that were syn-onymous in two or more cognitive maps (Table 1). This finding indi-cates differences in the perception of valued outcomes of thepolicies. Although different, the formulated goals were very much inthe same direction, emphasizing the economic sustainability of tour-ism. ‘‘Sustaining tourism in the long term’’ was a goal in three mapsand the one with the largest supporting hiesets (most concepts) inthese three maps. The remaining three maps at the municipal levelhad the largest hiesets (which is an indication of importance) in thegoals of ‘‘avoid economic loss’’, ‘‘support local community income’’and ‘‘avoid bad reputation for the destination’’. ‘‘Protect the environ-ment’’ was a concept found at the municipal level in four maps, form-ing a goal in three of them and being a key (ranked high in domain orcentrality analysis) issue in two maps, indicating that environmentalconsiderations, although not as widespread as economic ones, areapparent in the municipality’s policy. Socio-cultural considerationswere limited and ‘‘improve quality of life’’ formed a goal in only twomaps at Hersonissos. Key issues revealed from domain and centralityanalysis also emphasized the economic dimension of sustainability(Table 2). At the municipal level, responsibilities for various domainsare more concentrated and some concepts related to environmentaland socio-cultural sustainability were raised. However, these werelimited in number compared to economic considerations, while therewas a tendency to relate these aspects to alternative forms of tourismand quality tourism. Although this reflects perceived interrelatednessof policy themes, the emphasis on economic aspects and sectoral sus-tainability was clear.

The Prefecture of Heraklion. The analysis of policy makers’ cognitivemaps in the Prefecture of Heraklion revealed very few similaritiesamong maps. Although two interviewees argued that promotion isthe main task of the Prefecture’s Tourism Direction and did mentiona fair number of synonymous concepts related to promotion, they helddifferent perceptions on other issues, resulting in few similaritiesamong map properties. It was also found that they constructed theirmental models of policies in different ways. The comparison of key





and potent concepts revealed very few similarities also. Valued out-comes, as expressed in the formulated goals, were found to have signif-icant differences too, with only one synonymous goal, that being ‘‘topromote tourism’’. At the Prefecture level, two of the three intervie-wees formulated goals almost exclusively related to economic andsectoral sustainability (e.g. ‘‘promote tourism’’, ‘‘increase competitive-ness’’, ‘‘keep business working’’, ‘‘increase visitors numbers’’ and‘‘business sustainability’’). Key policy issues (Table 2) also focusedaround the promotion of tourism. Environmental protection was alsofound in two maps at the Prefecture level, in one of them forming agoal and in the other as a superordinate construct, contributing tothe goal of ‘‘saving resources for future generations’’. The analysis ofcognitive maps at the Prefecture of Heraklion revealed that althoughpolicy makers may work very close to each other and collaborate ona daily basis, their mental models of policies can differ significantly.The complexity of the domain and the lack of a comprehensivetourism development plan may explain the differences in these policymakers’ cognitive maps.

The Region of Crete. At the regional level there were hardly any similar-ities found among individual maps. Only two concepts (the promotionof tourism in the Region and the emphasis placed on the developmentof new ‘soft’ forms of tourism) were found to be synonymous. Thisscarcity of synonymous concepts resulted in significant differences inthe ways policy makers construct their mental models of tourism policy.The only similarity found among individual maps concerned theemphasis on the sustainability of the economic activity, and even con-siderations about natural and cultural resources were articulated as‘‘sustain tourism resource base’’. This can be attributed to the fact thatall these interviewees expressed the belief that regional authoritieswere not involved in the formulation of policies for tourism directly.This prohibited them from having a comprehensive view of tourismpolicies in the region and instead they discussed their involvementin the implementation of policies formulated by the NationalGovernment.

The Central Government. At the national level, although most of theinterviewees came from different organizations, there were several syn-onymous concepts among individual maps. Among them, the ‘‘devel-opment of alternative/specialized forms of tourism’’ was the singleconcept common in all individual maps and a predominant conceptin all maps, either as a potent concept, a cluster or ranked high in do-main and centrality analysis. These all indicate the importance of thatissue for tourism policy in Greece. However, similarities of content inmost cases were detected in pairs of maps rather than in the majority.Similarities were also few regarding the construal of the policy issues.National policies had a strong orientation to economic matters andthe quality of tourism. Although environmental and socio-cultural con-siderations were found among valued outcomes, these were few and





supported by short chains including concepts with a tourism-relatedcontent (e.g. specialized forms of tourism and quality tourism wereseen as having a positive influence in protecting the environment).Although this is considered an indication of perceived interrelatednessbetween policy areas, it also indicates a lack of inclusion of clear setenvironmental matters within policies.

Complexity

The comparisons of individual maps at each policy-making level inGreece revealed greater differences than similarities. Similarities fo-cused on the content of some concepts, while the structuring of theseconcepts into chains of arguments revealed great differences. Similar-ities in the construal in most cases represented very short chains of 1-3concepts, indicating that policy makers structure the problem differ-ently. Differences were also noticed regarding the content and thehierarchical structure of goals. Policy makers hold different percep-tions of policy outcomes and the means to achieve them. Inconsisten-cies were also found in the number of concepts supporting each goal.These findings reveal different degrees of elaboration, indicating dif-ferences in perceived complexity and in the relative importance thateach individual places on outcomes (with a poor elaboration indicatinga low value). Some differences were also detected regarding the con-tent of the key issues and the potent concepts, again indicating a com-plex domain with multiple ramifications and differences in the waypolicy makers value important issues. The lack of a clear set strategyand policy declaration could be another factor that permits differentvalue systems, ramifications and inconsistencies to be expressed. Tour-ism policies at all levels in Greece are not explicitly written or commu-nicated and comprehensive operational policy documents are absent.

Policy makers’ individual cognitive maps examined in the present re-search were characterized by the absence of loops. Policy makers tendto rationalize and conceptualize the policy domain. This has resultedin mental models more simple than reality and thus sustainable tour-ism policy can be much more complex than what has been mapped.Indeed, humans generally hold relatively more simple mental repre-sentations than reality (Anderies & Norberg, 2008). Although loopsare important in revealing the ability of individuals to identify, eitherconsciously or unconsciously, the existence of dynamic proceduresand manage complexity, in spontaneous arguments even highly sophis-ticated people, including political elites, tend to conceptualize causa-tions, prohibiting them from the formulation of feedbackmechanisms (Axelrod, 1976b).

The degree to which each policy maker managed to conceptualizeand manage complexity of policies is very different. As the researchhas revealed, there is not a single measure of complexity. Degrees ofperceived complexity seem to vary, even within individual maps,depending on the property examined. For example, although an inter-viewee may have formulated relatively few goals—an indication of a





conceptualization and structuring of the domain indicating low per-ceived complexity—the same individual may have many potent con-cepts, indicating perception of interrelatedness to achieve multipleramifications. Additionally, in the same individual’s map, thematicclusters, although well isolated (again an indication of structuring ofthe problem and, in contrast to potency analysis findings, an indicationof low interrelatedness of issues) were large, indicating complex policythemes. What this finding implies is that sustainable tourism cannot bedeconstructed into smaller units or properties, as only the total set willgive the whole picture.

Next, the properties of complex systems presented in the introduc-tion are used to discuss the relevance of the results to complexity the-ory. First, the property as described in complexity theory is presentedand then its relevance to cognitive mapping research on perceptionsof policies is discussed.

(i) Relationships: complex systems are characterized by a large numberof elements and complex, non-linear relationships between them.These interactions are mostly local and rather simple. What thisimplies is that given this large number of non-linear relationships,it is very unlikely that there is a unified purpose of the system(Cilliers, 1998; Manson, 2001; Mitchell, 2009). The analysis ofpolicy makers’ cognitive maps in Greece revealed that this is espe-cially true. The total sum of links in cognitive maps was 880. As inany complex system, local interactions determine the system; mean-ing is contextual and is determined by its surroundings which aredetermined by local relationships. This has resulted in very few sim-ilarities among individual maps. Policy makers, even within thesame policy-making level or even in the same institute, hold very dif-ferent perceptions over the goals to be attained. Goals whichlooked similar in wording were in fact different, bounded fromother surrounding concepts explaining their meaning. This is alsoreflected on the number of goals formulated. Only ten out of 89formulated goals were synonymous in two or more individual cogni-tive maps. Even within the same individual map, there is no single,overarching goal to which all the means are heading. So for exam-ple, ‘‘avoid economic loss’’ because of a low quality product offeredco-exists as a goal with ‘‘improve quality of life’’, ‘‘control urbansprawl’’, ‘‘need for a rest after an intensive tourist season’’, ‘‘localsenjoy a lively place’’ and ‘‘support the market’’, ‘‘get what the areadeserves rather than alcoholic tourism’’, ‘‘control legitimacy of F&Bestablishments’’ and ‘‘support tourism employment’’ in a singleindividual map at the municipal level.

(ii) Internal structure: Manson (2001) describes internal structure asbeing formed by tight connections between components, thusforming sub-systems. This means that relationships of varyingstrengths dictate which components will be close together formingsub-systems within the system in the same way that the members of afamily form a sub-system within the system of a village. Cluster





analysis of cognitive maps allowed the detection of sub-systems inpolicy perceptions, revealing their internal structure. Clusters ofdifferent sizes and different degrees of interrelatedness to otherclusters (sub-systems) were identified based on the relationshipsbetween the concepts. In this way, policy areas of concern to indi-vidual policy makers were detected, along with their interrelated-ness to other policy themes. For instance, ‘‘improve productquality’’ created a policy theme in four out of five cognitive mapsat the national level. ‘‘Improve product quality’’ was also the mostdensely related cluster to other clusters contributing to policy areassuch as ‘‘address new market segments’’, ‘‘employment’’, and‘‘quality tourism’’, as well as being supported by policy areas suchas ‘‘tourist education and training’’, and ‘‘control development oftourism accommodation’’ and formed part of the internal structureof several individual maps.

(iii) Open system: Complex systems are essentially open systems and inter-act with their environments as was revealed from the cognitive mapsof policy makers in Greece. Respondents from the Ministry of Tour-ism talked about policies enacted by other ministries such as theMinistry of the Environment or the Ministry of Economy andFinance. Other policy makers, from all levels, discussed policiesfor sustainable tourism and related them to the social welfare andquality of life of the population, revealing that tourism policy isan open system interacting with other policies in the same way thattourism is an open system interacting with its broader political,social, natural and economic environment. Sustainable tourism isa multi-dimensional concept and policy makers, although empha-sizing economic sustainability, find relationships between the tour-ism system and other systems.

(iv) Learning and memory: Complex systems are capable of storing infor-mation concerning their environment and using this when neces-sary to survive (Cillier, 1998; Mitchell, 2009). This results in adiversity of available information ‘stored’ as relationships betweenentities. In complex socio-economic systems this memory exists invarious places such as a business plan or the experience of individ-uals (Manson, 2001: p. 410). The more diverse the system is, thebetter it will be equipped with the necessary information to copewith unexpected changes. In this sense, diversity plays a central rolein complex systems, both natural and socio-economic. The moreperceptions, the better chances there are that policies include thenecessary information for addressing an issue. Diversity of policyperceptions was revealed as one result of the cognitive mappingresearch. Differences were large regarding the structure of the sys-tems and were also apparent in the content of the concepts. Itcould hardly be argued that one perception is wrong while anotheris correct. It is all of them that create the whole picture and allowfor a more inclusive model of sustainable tourism. Each individualcould contribute their experience, their standpoint and theirconceptualization of reality. Another implication of this propertyis that complex systems have a history. History means that the time





dimension is important in the operation of complex systems. Unfor-tunately, time was not integrated in this research so it is not possibleto study policies and their evolution across time here.

(v) Self-organization and adaptivity: Complex systems are capable of self-organizing and changing their internal structure to adapt to chang-ing conditions. This adaptability in human systems is characterizedby intention, which can be reflected in policy options and choices(Walker et al., 2006). This self-organizing capability of complex sys-tems is largely dependent on the ability of the system to learn andremember and thus on diversity (Cilliers, 1998; Mitchell, 2009).The adaptability of a system is determined by this diversity ofresponses/options in the system (Anderies & Norberg, 2008).Adaptivity in sustainable tourism policy is illustrated by the variouspaths drawn to achieve goals or by differences in the perceptions ofwhat constitutes sustainable tourism as expressed in wished endsand intentions behind policies. Hieset analysis showed that the sup-portive chains in synonymous goals were very different on severaloccasions. For instance, ‘‘protect and respect the environment’’was a goal found in two maps at the national level. However, thenumber of supporting concepts was very different in these maps.The only similarities between these two hiesets were in the contribu-tion of alternative and specialized forms of tourism development toenvironmental protection, and in the influence of tourism educa-tion and training on their development. The second policy-maker’sposition on environmental protection involved more issues relatedto controlling tourism accommodation development, the develop-ment of special tourism infrastructure, product quality improve-ment, the attraction of quality tourism and seasonality mitigation.However, adaptability cannot be fully studied and understood with-out including the time dimension into the research and its absencein this study poses certain limitations in examining complexity inpolicies.

(vi) Emergence: A core characteristic of complex systems is that they aremore than the sum of their parts. This comes as a result of non-linear relationships between a system’s components and a form ofsynergism between them (Mihata, 1997). The various ramificationsexpressed in the cognitive mapping interviews illustrate this charac-teristic. Differences in the structure of synonymous concepts and inchains of arguments (e.g. different outcomes stemming from thesame means or strategies) are illuminative of this property of com-plex systems. Potency analysis of cognitive maps was particularly use-ful in identifying concepts which held a central role in policymakers’ perceptions. Analysis of these concepts revealed that sev-eral were involved in multiple chains, which ramified and sup-ported multiple goals. For instance, a relatively simple action suchas ‘‘meetings with interest groups’’ which was a potent concept infour maps in the local level, has several ramifications and contrib-utes to multiple goals either intentionally or unintentionally. Forinstance, to one interviewee ‘‘meetings with interest groups’’ wereseen to contribute to ‘‘control the night market’’ and to ‘‘improve





aesthetics’’ which both lead to ‘‘improving the market’s operation’’and to the ‘‘quality of services offered’’, which in turn leads to i)‘‘avoid bad image and bad reputation of the destination’’ and toii) ‘‘improve overall quality’’, further leading to ‘‘economic sustain-ability of tourism’’ and to ‘‘address new more demanding interna-tional market segments than beach, night-life tourists’’. However,each of these concepts is supported in turn by several others thusincreasing ramifications and synergies. For example, according tothe same interviewee, the ‘‘improvement of overall quality’’ is sup-ported by several issues related to ‘‘infrastructure improvements’’,to ‘‘visitors’ information provision’’ and to ‘‘urban management’’,while the ‘‘economic sustainability of tourism’’ is further supportedby more concepts and so on. If one considers that ‘‘meetings withinterest groups’’ was an issue found in three more maps and wasinvolved in several chains in each of them, the synergies resultingfrom a rather simple action such as ‘‘meetings with interest groups’’become evident. However, emergent properties are one more evolv-ing characteristic of complex systems and could be illustrated inmore detail in a longitudinal study.

CONCLUSIONS

This research has examined the perceptions of policy makers at dif-ferent policy-making levels in Greece about sustainable tourism poli-cies. In this way, it offers a description of tourism policy in Greece,which is an understudied topic with poor documentation in both theacademic literature and the policy documents. Policies, at all levelsin Greece had a clear target of sustaining business and the attractionof ‘quality tourism’—most often defined as tourists with more moneyto spend and with special interests, in contrast to beach mass tourists.The way to attract such tourists was seen mainly to be through thedevelopment of alternative, specialized forms of tourism, the improve-ment of product quality, beautification of destinations, and tourismpromotion. Although environmental and quality of life considerationswere mentioned, economic issues prevailed in occurrence, length andsignificance in discussions revealing a rather parochial perspective onsustainable tourism development.

However, this research has gone beyond the mere description of pol-icies to an in-depth examination of their complexities, valued out-comes and adaptive processes. Unlike most studies in examiningcomplexity in tourism policy which focus on organizational complexityand the networks of actors, the present research has contributed to cur-rent studies of complexity in tourism policy by elaborating on policyissues and their interrelationships in concrete structures in an empiri-cal study using field data from all the policy making levels in Greece.The research has revealed that properties of complex systems are in-deed apparent in sustainable tourism policies and has elaborated thiscomplexity by explicitly defining the elements and the relationshipsof the system under investigation.





This research has contributed by transferring methods and conceptsfrom different fields to the examination of sustainable tourism com-plexity using an interdisciplinary research approach. Cognitive map-ping although a well established method in policy analysis and thestudying of complex problems, has rarely been used in examining com-plexity in tourism policies. The multiple analyses techniques employedin this method allowed the examination of several properties of com-plex systems in tourism policies. At the more practical level, the cogni-tive maps of policy makers developed have managed to capture tacitknowledge which is difficult to elicit and operationalize. This knowl-edge has been represented in formal models and made ‘visible’ in thisresearch. Such information is capable of assisting actors to understandmore clearly the information, to draw better inferences, and thereforeto help them manage complexity and improve their policy making(Farsari et al., 2010). The understanding of the potential effect ofincremental actions on the entire system, rather than only on theimmediate domain of effect, contributes to a better understanding ofhow a system works and helps policy makers to make better inferences.

Complexity was examined in the policy issues which have to be man-aged simultaneously to attain sustainable tourism development. Differ-ences detected revealed perceptions of valued outcomes, ramificationsof issues not perceived in the same way by all policy makers, as well aspotential inconsistencies. Comparisons also revealed that besides thewell articulated concepts of attracting quality tourists and developingalternative forms of tourism, a clear targeting of policies and meansto achieve goals is not apparent across individual policy makers. Never-theless, it is all these differences that emphasize the need for examin-ing and understanding the construal of policies into nets of interlinkedissues as complex systems. At the end, both differences and similaritieswill provide a more integrated model of sustainable tourism policiesand reveal the whole picture.

Although there are indications of complexity in policies and cogni-tive mapping has indeed proved particularly useful in examining this,there are difficulties and limitations in using complexity theory tounderstand policy issues in this research. The absence of the dimen-sion of time has been a shortcoming of this research inevitably result-ing in a certain degree of abstraction. The dimension of time holds afundamental role in the studying of complex systems. Learning andmemory, adaptation, and emergence are better understood in longitu-dinal studies examining changes in the relationships and entities ofcomplex systems which can demonstrate the evolving character of com-plex system.

Complexity, although a useful concept for investigating and concep-tualizing phenomena in the real-world that cannot be adequately de-scribed by reductionist, linear approaches, is not an allencompassing theory followed by a single set of general principlesapplicable in every situation (Mitchell, 2009). Properties of complexsystems have been developed within fields such as ecology, computa-tional mathematics, cybernetics and artificial intelligence but cannotbe considered to represent a comprehensive explanatory theory for





complexity. There is still a long way to go until these properties havebeen dialectically reworked and reformed to describe every living ornon-living system. Additionally, these properties are often betterunderstood in terms of the humans making the decisions. The lackof including the interactions of policy makers and their involvementinto networks of power and collaboration inevitably restricts the all-encompassing character of the models built.

Inevitably, mental models are simpler than reality. This research hasshown that although there are indications of complexity in the policydomain examined, the mental models of policy makers tend to be sim-pler than what reality implies. This is because of conceptualizationsmade by individuals to make sense of the complex real world, poorelaboration of certain aspects, the fragmentation of tourism, and alsoof policy departments, and the absence of other stakeholders’ percep-tions. Moreover, individual maps, as those examined here, are alwayssimpler than their composite (also called merged or aggregated) coun-terparts. Finally, caution is needed when using the mental models pro-duced here. Mental models built cannot necessarily be considered asmodels of successful sustainable tourism policies. The policy makers’mental models discussed here represent the net of considered policyissues at different policy making levels at a given time. They are illustra-tive neither of the efficacy of the considered policy measures nor oftheir successful implementation.

Future research should focus on the implementation aspects of sus-tainable tourism policies. Clearly, in an effort to improve sustainabletourism policy more elements and processes, such as barriers to policyimplementation, the dynamics of power and politics and monitoring ofperformance have to be considered as well (Dodds & Butler, 2009).Policy makers’ roles and responsibilities, affiliation and ideologies,are factors influencing perceptions and are important in understand-ing the reality of policy making. Future research should also examinethe change and evolution of policies through time. The mentalmodeling of sustainable tourism policies should also consider otherinterested parties and tourism stakeholders. A diverse range ofperspectives expressed by different actors would increase the multi-dimensionality of mental models and bring representations closer tothe real world (Anderies & Norberg, 2008). Merged models should alsoform a field of inquiry for future research and merged maps, aggregat-ing all perceptions, must be discussed in a group setting to allow clar-ifications, consensus building and the development of a shared modelof policy.

This research has examined sustainable tourism policy as a complexsystem. What it has shown is that complexity and adaptivity in sustain-able tourism policies are also found among policy issues and their rela-tionships. It has shown that there is not an ultimate recipe, an absolutepath to sustainable tourism, nor there is a unified, overarching purposeguiding policies. On the contrary, there are several, often divergentperceptions, complex relationships within the system and with itsbroader environment, interrelatedness of policy issues, and multiplegoals. This implies that policy issues are interwoven into a net rather





than following simple linear chains with a single outcome, suggestingthat policy formulation should consider potential nets instead of frag-mented policies. Sustainable tourism policy is essentially a complex do-main which cannot be understood by summing up simple linear chainsor simple policy themes. It is more than that, however, and we need toexamine it holistically to understand ramifications and potentiallyunintended outcomes. Understanding all the ramifications of policymeasures may ultimately result in better policies, eventually translatinga complex, value driven concept into action.

REFERENCES

Abel, T. (2003). Understanding Complex Human Ecosystems: The Case ofEcotourism on Bonaire. Conservation Ecology 7. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art10 (7 November 2004).

Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2001). SODA–Journey Making and Mapping inPractice. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematicWorld revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict(2nd ed., pp. 43–60). Chichester: John Willey & Sons.

Ahmad, R., & Ali, N. A. (2004). Performance appraisal decision in Malaysian publicservice. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 48–64.

Anderies, J. M., & Norberg, J. (2008). Theoretical challenges: Informationprocessing and navigation in social-ecological systems. In J. Norberg & G. S.Cumming (Eds.), Complexity theory for a sustainable future (pp. 155–174). USA:Columbia University Press.

Axelrod, R. (1976a). Decision for neoimperalism: The deliberations of the BritishEastern Committee in 1918. In R. Axelrod (Ed.), Structure of decision: Thecognitive maps of political elites (pp. 77–95). Princeton, New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Axelrod (1976b). Results. In R. Axelrod (Ed.), Structure of decision: The cognitivemaps of political elites (pp. 221–248). Princeton, New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Baggio, R. (2008). Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system. Tourism Analysis,13, 1–20.

Bougon, M. G., Baird, N., Komocar, J. M., & Ross, W. (1990). Identifying strategicloops: The self-Q interviews. In A. S. Huff (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought(pp. 327–354). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Bramwell, B. (2006). Actor, power, and discourse of Growth Limits. Annals ofTourism Research, 33, 957–978.

Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G., & van der Straaten, J. (1996). A framework forunderstanding sustainable tourism management. In B. Bramwell, I. Henry, G.Jackson, A. G. Prat, G. Richards, & J. van der Straaten (Eds.), Sustainabletourism management: Principles and practice (pp. 23–71). The Netherlands:Tilburg University Press.

Bramwell, B., & Meyer, D. (2007). Power and tourism policy relations in transition.Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 766–788.

Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking.Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 392–415.

Brown, S. M. (1992). Cognitive mapping and repertory grids for qualitative surveyresearch: Some comparative observations. Journal of Management Studies, 29,287–307.

Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism—A state of the art review. TourismGeographies, 1, 7–25.

Chen, J. Q., & Lee, S. M. (2003). An exploratory cognitive DSS for strategicdecision making. Decision Support Systems, 36, 147–160.

Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism. UK: Routledge.Colebatch, H. K. (1998). Policy. Buckingham: Open University Press.



http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art10

http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art10



Copland, P., Garnham, B., & Canava R.Y. (2004). Sustainable tourism inQueenstown: An application of cognitive strategic mapping. In K.A. Smith,& C. Schott (Eds.), Proceedings of the New Zealand Tourism and Hospitality ResearchConference (pp. 43–54). Wellington, 8–10 December 2004.

Costa, J., & Teare, R. (2000). Developing an environmental scanning process in thehotel sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12,156–169.

Daniels, K., de Chernatony, L., & Johnson, G. (1995). Validating a method formapping managers’ mental models of competitive industry structures. HumanRelations, 18, 975–991.

Dodds, R., & Butler, R. W. (2009). Inaction more than action: Barriers to theimplementation of sustainable tourism policies. In S. Gossling, C. M. Hall, &D. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures perspectives on systems, restructuringand innovations (pp. 43–57). London: Routledge.

Dredge, D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. TourismManagement, 27, 269–280.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Federal-state relations and tourism public policy.Current Issues in Tourism, 6, 415–443.

Eden, C. (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems.European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 673–686.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1998). Analysing and comparing idiographic causalmaps. In C. Eden & J-C. Spender (Eds.), Managerial and organisational cognition:Theory, methods and research (pp. 192–209). London: Sage Publications.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). SODA—the principles. In J. Rosenhead & J.Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problemstructuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2nd ed.). Chichester:John Willey & Sons.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2004). Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysisin the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 615–630.

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., & Cropper, S. (1992). The analysis of cause maps. Journalof Management Studies, 29, 309–324.

Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., & Lee, M. E. (1997). Chaos, complexity, and sociology: Myths,models and theories. USA: Sage.

Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 31, 274–295.

Farsari, I., Butler, R., & Szivas, E. (2010). The use of cognitive mapping in analysingsustainable tourism policy: Methodological implications. Tourism RecreationResearch, 35(2), 145–160.

Farsari, Y., Butler, R., & Prastacos, P. (2007). Sustainable tourism policy formediterranean destinations: Issues and interrelationships. International Journalof Tourism Policy, 1, 58–78.

Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (2002). Chaos and complexity in tourism: In search of anew perspective. In L. Fredline, L. . Jargo, & C. Cooper (Eds.), B. FaulknerProgressing Tourism Research (pp. 205–219). Channel View: Clevedon.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policyperspective. In B. Bramwell (Ed.), Tourism collaboration, and partnership: Politics,practice, and sustainability (pp. 143–158). Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Hay, B., & Yeoman, I. (2005). Turning scenarios into a strategy map: Our ambitionfor Scottish tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11, 89–102.

Hjortso, C. N. (2004). Enhancing public participation in natural resourcemanagement using soft or—an application of strategic option developmentand analysis in tactical forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research,152, 667–683.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological andsocial systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.

Huff, A. S., & Fletcher, K. E. (1990). Conclusion: Key mapping decisions. In A. S.Huff (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought (pp. 403–412). Chichester: John Wileyand Sons.

Jamal, T., Borges, M., & Figueiredo, R. (2004). Systems-based modelling forparticipatory tourism planning and destination management. Tourism Analysis,9, 77–89.





Jenkins, M. (1998). The theory and practice of comparing causal maps. In C. Eden& J.-C. Spender (Eds.), Managerial and organisational cognition: theory, methodsand research (pp. 231–249). London: Sage Publications.

Kitchin, R. A. (1994). Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them?. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 14, 1–19.

Klein, G. A. (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. Advances in Man-Machine SystemsResearch, 5, 47–92.

Lankford, S.V., Scholl, K., Pfister, R., Lankford, J., & Williams, A. (2005). Cognitivemapping: An application for trail management. In K. Bricker (Eds.),Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 378–384). Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-326. Newtown Square, PA: US Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. http://www.fs.fe-d.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2005/326papers/lankford326.pdf (25 January 2006).

Lovelock, B. (2001). Intergovernmental relations in the protected areas-tourismpolicy domain: The influence of macro-economic policy. Current Issues inTourism, 4, 253–274.

Macbeth, J. (2005). Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of TourismResearch, 32, 962–984.

Manson, S. M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory.Geoforum, 32, 405–414.

McDonald, J. R. (2009). Complexity Science. An alternative world view forunderstanding sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,17(4), 455–471.

McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management, 20,425–434.

Mihata, K. (1997). The persistence of ‘‘emergence’’. In R. A. Eve, S. Horsfall, & M.E. Lee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity, and sociology: Myths, models and theories(pp. 30–38). USA: Sage.

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.Mysiak, J., Giupponi, C., & Rosato, P. (2005). Towards the development of a

decision support system for water resource management. EnvironmentalModeling and Software, 20, 203–214.

Norberg, J., & Cumming, G. S. (2008). Complexity theory for a sustainable future. USA:Columbia University Press.

NSSG (2009). Tourism statistics—National Secretariat of National Statistical Serviceof Greece. http://www.statistics.gr/StatMenu_eng.asp (11 January 2010).

Pforr, C. (2006). Tourism policy in the making—An Australian network study.Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 87–108.

Reger, R. K. (1990). The repertory grid technique for eliciting the content andstructure of cognitive constructive systems. In A. S. Huff (Ed.), Mappingstrategic thought (pp. 301–309). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory ofplanning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Roe, E. (1998). Taking complexity seriously: Policy analysis, triangulation and sustainabledevelopment. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). A new paradigm of analysis. In J. Rosenhead &J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problemstructuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2nd ed., pp. 1–19).Chichester: John Willey & Sons.

Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analysis and tourism: From theory topractice. UK: Channel View Publications.

Stevenson, N., Airey, D., & Miller, G. (2008). Tourism policy making: Thepolicymakers’ perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 732–750.

Terkenli, T.S. (2000). Tourism and Place Identity: Patterns of Continuity andChange in Hersonissos, Greece. CD-ROM of the International ScientificConference Tourism on Islands and Specific Destinations, University of theAegean, Chios, Greece, 14–17 December.

Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. W. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island:Development and use of sustainable development indicators in Samoa. Journalof Sustainable Tourism, 10, 363–387.



http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2005/326papers/lankford326.pdf



http://www.statistics.gr/StatMenu_eng.asp



Tyler, D., & Dinan, C. (2001). The role of interested groups in England’s emergingtourism policy network. Current Issues in Tourism, 4, 210–252.

Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking:Local sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 325–345.

Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P., & Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring resilience insocial-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory develop-ment: Introduction to special issue. Ecology and Society, 11, 12.

Walker, P. A., Greiner, R., McDonald, D., & Lyne, V. (1999). The tourism futuressimulator: A systems thinking approach. Environmental Modelling and Software,14, 59–67.

Walmsley, D. J., & Jenkins, J. M. (1992). Tourism cognitive mapping of unfamiliarenvironments. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 268–286.

WTO (2009). Tourism Highlights. http://www.unwto.org/f (18 August 2009).Xiang, Z., & Formica, S. (2007). Mapping environmental change in tourism: A

study of the incentive travel industry. Tourism Management, 28, 1193–1202.Young, M. (1999). Cognitive maps of nature-based tourists. Annals of Tourism

Research, 26, 817–839.Zahra, A., & Ryan, C. (2007). From chaos to cohesion—Complexity in tourism

structures: An analysis of New Zealand’s regional tourism organizations.Tourism Management, 28, 854–862.

Submitted 17 August 2008. Resubmitted 16 March 2009, Resubmitted 27 January 2010.Resubmitted 13 May 2010. Resubmitted 10 September 2010. Resubmitted 17 December 2010.Final version 11 March 2011. Accepted 14 March 2011. Refereed anonymously.Coordinating Editor: C. Michael Hall

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com



http://www.unwto.org/f


Documents

Complexity in Tourism Policy