Int. J. Tourism Policy, Vol. 3, No.

3, 2010 181

Towards a framework for tourism strategy

implementation

Julia Nina Albrecht

Victoria Management School,
Victoria University of Wellington,
P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Fax: 0064-4-463 5180
E-mail: julia.albrecht@vuw.ac.nz

Abstract: Tourism strategy development is a common practice for tourism

destinations but in many cases the resulting objectives and recommendations
are not put into practice. The research project presented here investigates
implementation processes of two tourism strategies in order to illuminate
potential reasons for what is often perceived as ‘policy failure’. Tourism
strategy implementation is found to be dynamic and dependent on actors at the
grassroots level. Additional factors are the stability of stakeholder relationships
and their levels of information, particularly where there is little support from
agencies. The findings are consolidated in a framework for tourism strategy
implementation.

Keywords: tourism strategy; tourism policy; framework; implementation.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Albrecht, J.N. (2010)

‘Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation’, Int. J. Tourism
Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.181–200.

Biographical notes: Julia N. Albrecht is a Lecturer in Tourism Management

at the Victoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington.
Her research interests are tourism policy and planning and the roles and
relationships of stakeholders.

1 Introduction

Planning for tourism receives much attention in tourism research but the implementation
of the planning results does not. The research agenda of the last decade includes
detailed work on approaches, aims, objectives and anticipated outcomes of planning
tasks (e.g., Hall, 2008; Gunn and Var, 2002; Dredge and Jenkins, 2007; Edgell et al.,
2008). Therefore, it could be assumed that the implementation of these efforts receives
similar attention, but this is not the case. Fifteen years after first drawing attention to the
lack of implementation research in tourism (Hall, 1994), Hall (2009, p.242) recently
renewed his call for an “increased focus on implementation” in tourism research. It seems
then that little has changed; the tourism researcher remains in a situation similar to what
was experienced at the beginning of widespread implementation research in the political
sciences when Pressman and Wildavsky (1973, p.166) stated: “There is (or there must
be) a large literature […] It must be there; it should be there, but in fact it is not”. Even

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

182 J.N. Albrecht

though some progress has been made, this still largely holds true for research on tourism
strategy and plan implementation.
This paper aims to narrow the gap on knowledge on implementation in tourism
by developing and discussing a framework for both our practical understanding
of the relevant processes as well as for, hopefully, further research in the topic area.
Using Simmons et al.’s (1974) Public Policy Flow Model (Figure 1) as a starting
point, this paper discusses vital components of implementation processes both for public
policy in general and in tourism. Focussing on process-related stakeholder interactions
and its implications instead of the policy-practice gap, this paper proposes a framework
that includes various types of stakeholders, their roles and possible modes of actions and
types of outputs and outcomes in an implementation process.

Figure 1 Public policy flow model

Source: Simmons et al. (1974)

First, the literature on strategy and plan implementation is reviewed and discussed in the
context of the Public Policy Flow Model and public policy implementation literature.
After introducing the methodology and methods employed in this study, a description and
explanation of the project that forms the basis of framework development is provided; the
major findings are then used to inform discussion and framework development.
The paper concludes by assessing the framework’s strengths and limits and its potential
uses in tourism practice and research.

2 Implementation research in tourism: critical aspects and influences

Elliott (1997, p.97) states that “management documents are not worth the paper they are
written on unless the policies and decisions are implemented”. It is, therefore, surprising
that only a small number of studies explicitly address policy, strategy and plan
implementation in tourism (e.g., Baum, 1994; Akehurst, 1998; Wisansing et al., 2004;
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 183

Lai et al., 2006; Dodds, 2007a, 2007b). Many of these studies focus on developing
country contexts; some are mainly descriptive and do not apply political sciences
knowledge. The aforementioned studies provide significant insights into tourism policy
and planning systems and identify characteristics that impact on these systems; however,
they have not resulted in a comprehensive understanding of implementation processes
in tourism.
A considerable number of studies investigate tourism policy, strategy and planning
in broader manner; without explicitly seeking to do so, these studies contribute
considerably to the understanding of implementation processes in tourism. Pforr (2001),
for example, examines implementation as part of the ‘policy cycle’. Acknowledging that
implementation is not a discrete phase but closely interwoven with other phases of the
policy cycle, he recognises longstanding findings from the political sciences as well as
(adaptive) planning (e.g., Hjern, 1982; Winter, 2003 for the public policy perspective;
Hall, 1980 for planning) that are also thought to hold true in tourism (Reed, 1999; Gunn
and Var, 2002; Jenkins, 2006).
One of the few studies in tourism management that goes beyond researching tourism
policy-making and early implementation processes is Pearce’s (2000) study of a tourism
plan review in Samoa. Taking into account both stakeholders involved as well as scale,
he states that
“Implementation has generally been faster in those areas which are small
scale, are not capital intensive, involve the public sector and have frequently
been supported by donor agency assistance. Conversely, projects involving
the private sector and requiring more capital have tended to lag.” (Pearce, 2000,
p.198)
Accentuating the significance of implementation reviews and resulting updates of the
related strategies, Pearce’s study draws attention to practical implications, thus providing
avenues for successful implementation in tourism.
Further contributions to the understanding of implementation in tourism result from
studies employing stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory, a management theory that
declares that the relationships of actors in an environment depend on how their interests
are considered and balanced (Reynolds et al., 2006), has been used in the investigation of
collaboration and partnerships in tourism in protected areas (Jamal and Stronza, 2009).
While the importance of stakeholder partnerships for long-term implementation success
is highlighted, downsides of collaboration between actors were identified as potential
implementation barriers. This corresponds to issues pertaining to bottom-up planning and
implementation approaches in fields other than tourism (e.g., Hill and Hupe, 2002 for the
political sciences). Jamal and Stronza (2009) also draw attention to practical
consequences of their findings, in particular the need to take into account longer
timeframes for implementation in tourism.
Mixed scanning approaches are employed and examined extensively in the political
sciences and policy practice; yet, these approaches are rarely considered in tourism
(e.g., Feick and Hall, 2000 for land use planning in tourism; Veal, 2002). Combining
aspects of disjointed incrementalism (sometimes better known as the science of muddling
through, Lindblom, 1959, 1979) and rationalist thinking, Etzioni (1986) proposed mixed
scanning approaches to decision-making and implementation. Even though these
approaches have not yet been fully explored in tourism, it is fair to assume that much
tourism implementation practice is based on a mixed-method approach that combines
184 J.N. Albrecht

aspects of top-down and bottom-up models of planning and implementation and their
differing loci of power in the tourism and planning systems.

3 The public policy flow model

3.1 The model in the context of public policy

Simmons et al.’s (1974) Public Policy Flow Model (Figure 1) is a schema of relations
between stakeholders and possible interaction processes regarding policy issues.
These are identified by actors in a policy environment; there is not necessarily a policy
in place. Stakeholders exercising leadership, clientele or pressure groups and individuals
are seen as significant actors. It is worth noting that both professional and private
roles influence stakeholder decision-making and action. Indeed, stakeholder theory in a
management context suggests that any individual makes decisions based on their
personal values and principles, a factor that is often underestimated in research and
theory (Reynolds et al., 2006).
The significant element of the model is the policy flow, described by the authors as
“evolution of a policy issue” (Simmons et al., 1974, p.460). The model transcends
traditional policy thinking by assuming a non-linear perspective (conversely,
see Lai et al. (2006) for a linear perspective on planning and implementation in tourism).
Policy flow pertains to a whole policy environment; directly or indirectly it may
affect other actors or other policy issues. The model was developed in the context of
policy-making; however, as policy-making and implementation are not separate
consecutive processes but highly integrated, it can be argued that it can be meaningfully
employed for an investigation of policy implementation. Simmons et al. (1974, p.466)
highlight the strong overlap of actors with roles in policy-making and implementation
by stating that “administrative agencies are paramount in both shaping the content
and nature of the policy flow and subsequently in implementing policy decisions”. This is
particularly relevant in the consideration of feedback that, derived from experiences and
knowledge gained during interaction, re-informs policy process, outputs and outcomes.

3.2 The model in the context of tourism

Tourism as well as its governance are essentially political activities. Indeed, there is a
large body of literature that investigates stakeholders in tourism, their roles and
relationships. Murphy and Murphy (2004, p.189) state “Researchers have identified
a consistent handful of stakeholder candidates, but not always the same groups”.
Much emphasis is placed on the public sector that holds central roles in organisation,
exercises leadership and shapes the economic framework for tourism. The public sector
has, therefore, central roles in policy-making and implementation at different levels of
government (Pforr, 2001). Even though tourism can have vital roles in regional
(economic) development, which is reflected in many tourism-planning documents, the
private sector is seldom assigned a central role in policy and implementation; however, as
tourism companies are immediately affected by tourism policy or legislation their
collaboration is sometimes sought. To organise such involvement, partnerships between
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 185

public and private sector actors are becoming more frequent (Augustyn and
Knowles, 2000) but it is yet to be investigated whether these lead to increased
coordination of a planning effort and as a result enhanced tourism strategy and planning
outcomes. Interest groups and other advocacy groups at the community level occupy
important roles in many policy contexts. They are important players in tourism planning
and management (e.g., Murphy and Murphy, 2004; Simpson, 2008) and central to the
idea of stakeholder collaboration (Hall, 1999). Indeed, since Murphy’s (1985) call for
more significance to be placed on the host community (and its representatives other than
local government), its importance for tourism planning and destination attractiveness has
been highlighted repeatedly. Easterling’s (2005) account of residents’ perspectives in
tourism provides a useful overview of the related literature that shall not be discussed
here. Local community representation is particularly relevant in rural and peripheral
destinations that are the focus of this study.
It is well established in the tourism literature that the values, aims and institutional
relationships of any core authority in a tourism policy process need to be identified to
facilitate policy formulation and implementation. As Hall (2010, p.202) states,
“Considering power in relational terms highlights the manner in which power works
differently in interpersonal and institutional relations, as well as society as a whole”. It is,
however, equally acknowledged that the multitude of stakeholders with varying interests
and means hinders – or at least delays – consensual decision-making. The Public Policy
Flow Model is useful in that it allows the researcher to place significance on de facto
discretion of stakeholders instead of having to adhere to the de jure hierarchical
discretion that the relevant institutional structure suggests.
The model thus, explicitly or implicitly, allows for potential implementation
outcomes ranging from the implementation of a policy or an objective as planned and
stated in a document to non-implementation and abandonment of the policy or strategy.
It can incorporate aspects identified as potential concerns in policy implementation:
resources and incentives, institutional arrangements and legislation, the transparency of
processes, issues around power and authority, the inclusion, commitment and
accountability of actors and the accessibility of the policy (Hall, 2009).
Evaluation and feedback have only recently received some attention even though
the World Tourism Organisation stated as early as 1994 that
“During and after implementation, tourism development must be monitored to
ensure that it is accomplishing the objectives and achieving the recommended
policies.” (WTO, 1994, p.16)
Fennell (2006) and Dredge and Jenkins (2007) discuss practices of quantitative and
qualitative monitoring and evaluation in tourism planning and propose different
types of evaluation processes for different planning stages. As the merit of evaluation
techniques during earlier stages of tourism planning is now acknowledged, evaluation in
tourism is no longer considered a mere assessment of planning outcomes. Fennell (2006)
proposes different evaluation techniques during programme development (formative
evaluation), for judging a programme against specified criteria during and after
implementation (summative evaluation), and for a professional accreditation (evaluation
by standards). Dredge and Jenkins (2007) add to these approaches the idea of a
meta-evaluation. They distinguish evaluation that is to inform the ongoing planning
process (such as the evaluation of planning alternatives) and evaluation that is to inform
186 J.N. Albrecht

future planning processes (for example, an assessment of the evaluation tools and their
effectiveness).

4 Methodology and methods

This study employs a pragmatic approach; as Patton (2002, p.72) describes it,
“The point is to do what makes sense, report fully on what was done, why it was done,
and what the implications are for findings”. Within tourism research, the pragmatic
paradigm has not often been explicitly used; however, Downard and Mearman (2004)
claim that much tourism research draws from a number of different research methods the
choice of which has often been guided by pragmatic principles. According to Pansiri
(2005, p.199) who discusses pragmatic research in the tourism context, “actions,
situations and consequences” are the foundation of any pragmatic knowledge claim.
These “are socially constructed by the processes of institutionalisation, legitimisation and
socialisation” (Pansiri, 2005, p.199) thus providing a useful context for social science
research and for studies of implementation processes in particular. As a research
approach, pragmatism generally aims to identify the best and most inclusive
understanding of a problem, regardless of epistemological or methodological constraints
(Pansiri, 2006). These characteristics are valuable for this study that uses a multi-method
case study approach to investigate two implementation environments individually and
comparatively.
Starting point for the development of the research design was the Policy Flow
Model that was used as a framework in this study (see Figure 2). Elements of the model
were addressed using semi-structured and open-ended interviews as well as content
analysis of strategy and policy documents, minutes of meetings and newspaper articles
(Hall and Valentin, 2005). Starting with strategy-makers and ‘key implementers’, a
snowballing process was used to identify further interviewees and to also follow the
policy process as perceived by the main actors in it. A last round of interviews again
addressed the initial key stakeholders. All interviews addressed the participants’
involvement with strategy making and implementation, the nature of decision-making
and processes of taking action as well as collaboration between stakeholders.
Questions about what was seen as ‘successful’ implementation and relationships between
aims stated in a strategy document and actual outcomes were the focus interviews
with persons involved in implementation and commissioners of the strategies.
Between May 2007 and May 2008, 29 interviews were conducted (27 in person,
two telephone interviews), audio-recorded and transcribed. About half of the
interviewees were government representatives or involved with the commissioning
of the strategy documents; the other half were community members who had become
involved with strategy making or implementation for various reasons (for example, as
leaders or members of community or interest groups or as private sector representatives).
All interviewees were also asked if they were aware of or could supply documents
relevant to strategy making or implementation processes to be included in the content
analysis; most interviewees subsequently contributed written documentation. The total
number of pages of all documents analysed in this study amounted to approximately
900 pages.
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 187

Figure 2 Research design overview

The analysis of both the documents and the interviews was a two-step process:
the first step involved inductive coding (Thomas, 2006) to identify prevalent and
recurrent factors that influenced implementation processes. In a second step, features of
the Policy Flow Model informed a content analysis that focused on decisions and actions
of stakeholders and decisive events that impacted on the ‘implementation trail’.
This combination of data gathering and data analysis methods allowed for a discovery of
the policy story; it assisted a process-oriented investigation of implementation in tourism
while at the same time providing factual information and verifying stakeholder
statements.

5 The project: two case studies in New Zealand

Two rural peripheral tourism destinations in Southern New Zealand (Figure 3) are
examined adopting a case study approach. The first case study, Stewart Island, is an
isolated island community that mainly attracts nature lovers and that experiences fairly
steady tourism numbers. The second, the Catlins, is a dispersed rural community, which
many tourists pass through in one day only; nevertheless, overnight visitor numbers are
continually rising. The respective strategy documents are the Stewart Island Tourism
Strategy (New Zealand Tourism Board, 1997) and the Catlins Tourism Strategy
(University of Otago: Department of Tourism, 2004).
One aim of the selection of case studies was to provide a balanced insight into the
tourism strategy implementation situation in the existing New Zealand tourism planning.
Therefore, the case study regions chosen and the relevant tourism strategies represent two
different planning approaches. The strategy documents differ in terms of year of origin,
the region they refer to, the authorities who commissioned them and those who are
supposed to carry them out. Even though they both refer to tourism in their respective
target region and are fairly similar in the scale they apply to, the context as well as their
188 J.N. Albrecht

content foci differ. Both strategy documents contain recommendations that refer to
resource allocation as well as the anticipated implementation process in more or less
detail, which is thought to make them particularly suitable for this study. In addition,
these differences in date of origin (1997 and 2004) allow the possibility to examine
different stages of implementation processes and including the Stewart Island Tourism
Strategy also allows an examination of a tourism policy over a period of time.

Figure 3 The location of the two case study areas in New Zealand

A significant difference between the two strategies is that they were commissioned
by different levels of tourism governance. Whereas the older strategy for Stewart Island
was commissioned and made by the New Zealand Tourism Board, the then main national
tourism body at the time; the newer Catlins Tourism Strategy was commissioned and
prepared at lower regional levels of government and is generally thought to be the result
of a community bottom-up process. Because of the various differences in the strategies,
it is assumed that there are different implementation styles and therefore different
outputs. One concern that can partly be overcome through this selection of case studies
refers to the timeframe of policies that are investigated. Many political sciences
implementation studies examine policies only about three to six years after their initial
release and it has been claimed that this was too early to assess process outcomes
(Fox, 1990). Early studies of implementation only used a two to four year time-span
for their research. This was heavily criticised for not providing the potential for
policy-oriented learning and policy evolution and change (Sabatier, 1985). To avoid these
problems, strategies with different dates of origin and different timeframes have been
chosen for this project.
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 189

6 Important factors in implementation in tourism

The following discussion of findings is structured according to aspects highlighted in the

Public Policy Flow Model as this informed the data analysis in this study.

6.1 Stakeholders, their roles and actions

Both strategy documents mention stakeholders that are expected to adopt key roles during
strategy implementation. This is a common approach in strategy making in tourism and
was employed in both the top-down and the bottom-up strategy examined in this study.
The analysis of both strategy documents as well as minutes of meetings that took place
early after strategy release, however, reveals that most of these stakeholders were less
involved in the actual implementation processes than anticipated. Instead, the main
responsibility and leadership rested with those community groups and individuals that
also had had frequent input into the strategy-making processes; in both cases, these actors
continued to be involved during implementation. Also, both case studies show that
the overall number of actors is lower than the strategy documents recommended.
The analysis of minutes of meetings as well as correspondence illustrates that local
government representatives only contributed when they either had an interest to become
involved (for example, with infrastructure planning) or if they were specifically asked to
do so (for example, with funding for a visitor information centre). Because of their
infrequent involvement and the resulting instability of stakeholder relationships, they
were, however, detached from plan implementation, the community groups involved and
their concerns.
Interest groups, too, had a less significant role in tourism strategy implementation
than envisaged in the strategy documents. Both case study areas have one very active
tourism-related interest group but there has been little notice from other advocacy groups.
Two factors are responsible for this; first, the number of residents in both regions is low,
second, the interviews revealed that most active residents become involved with a
number of issues and groups. As a result, individuals emerged as the most influential
stakeholders in tourism strategy implementation, as they often held a high level of
knowledge of what other projects were pursued by other individuals and community
groups.
Differing degrees of experience among the contributors to strategy implementation
emerged as significant as it impacts on the outcomes that can be achieved. In many cases,
tourism planning at the destination level relies on volunteers whose involvement depends
not only on their own time but also on their skills and experience. As the following
quotes by community group members in the Catlins show, volunteer involvement
potentially adds to difficulties resulting from the instability in stakeholder relationships
described earlier:
“A lot of them won’t be 100% confident in meetings as well. […] Some people
there are a bit shy; they are more timid than others. So the dominant and
louder personalities can come through. So that means that decision-making is
often – or can be – pushed by individuals.
There was a loss of experience, new people coming on board and some of the
new people, frankly, weren’t up to the task.”
190 J.N. Albrecht

While stakeholders can certainly improve their ability to contribute as time passes,
volunteers in planning processes may not be respected by their professional counterparts
or, in turn, may not take seriously their consultant counterparts for lack of knowledge on
the destination region.

6.2 Implementation processes and outcomes

Stakeholder action and the resulting processes are strongly informed by both professional
and private roles and values of the persons involved. While this has been confirmed
for non-tourism management contexts (Reynolds et al., 2006), this is prevalent
in tourism also. The high degree of involvement of non-professional stakeholders in
tourism influences not only decision-making and action but, clearly, also implementation
outcomes. The previous section has highlighted that the stability of stakeholder
relationships and degrees of information, skill and experience of actors are vital factors
in implementation in tourism. An examination of the resulting implementation
processes shows that autonomy is indeed another relevant factor. The Public Policy
Flow Model operationalised autonomy as a resource. The findings of this study suggest a
slightly different perspective, namely that of autonomy over resources. The resources that
stakeholders can allocate and use impact not only on both the power and the importance
they have in a setting but also on their own capacity to implement. The type of
resources that stakeholders require autonomy over depends strongly on the nature
of the project they wish to achieve. Resources that emerged as significant in this study
include political support at both local and national levels, access to individuals and
networks and information. Funding, a resource typically associated with incurring
implementation difficulties (at higher levels of government: e.g., Pearce, 2000;
Pforr, 2001), was not seen as very important at the community level; one interviewee
stated with respect to potential funding difficulties:
“If you actually develop a good image and the local government employees and
people see you as an efficient organisation, they’ll help you. […] If you build
up a reputation, and if your motives and methods are seen to be good, you get
support, even for difficult things.”
Where the private sector is involved in tourism strategy implementation, vested interests
and their implications for these processes and the related outcomes need to be taken into
account. Four interviewees, all of them tourism operators in the regions, mentioned
their business interests as a significant factor in their decision to become involved
with strategy making and implementation. While this evidently determines the character
of their involvement and its focus, it is not seen as negative by any of the other
stakeholders (with the exception of one interviewee). Instead, it is particularly welcomed
by local government representatives who themselves become interested to further
regional development:
“At the end of the day, for tourism, if you can’t get those that have a business
interest engaged in it, nothing’s going to happen.”
Indeed, not only incentives to become involved and implementation methods are
contentious and differ between stakeholders, even the perception and expectation of what
constitutes ‘successful implementation’ is up for debate. As Kettl (1990, p.413) notes:
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 191

“A ‘success’ to a local official might seem a ‘failure’ to a federal official.

Moreover, judgements can change radically over time as well. […] Judgements
of success and failure thus are most elusive.”
When assessing implementation processes and outcomes, the time that has passed since
the emergence of a policy issue or the release of a strategy document needs to be taken
into account. The strategies under investigation had been released three and ten years
before fieldwork on their implementation started; accordingly, it would be rational
to expect a larger proportion of strategy aims implemented for the older document.
Instead, the opposite was found. Implementation of the Catlins Tourism Strategy
is overseen by a very committed and well-connected community group. This group has
ownership of the strategy document in that decision-making and action are largely in
their responsibility; also, local government acknowledges this ownership and the group
receives advice if desired and sometimes financial support. The result is a larger
acceptance in the wider community, which – in turn – motivates the group. Over time,
the group has grown in experience and skill. On Stewart Island, on the other hand, there
was no ownership of the strategy; the community group that ‘adopted’ for a short
time was not primarily concerned with tourism management but with promoting the
island to potential visitors. Therefore, they focused on recommendations closely related
to that aim, thus deviating from the original intentions stated in the document and
delaying or blocking the implementation of other aims.

6.3 Implications of strategy making

Despite the often discussed (conceptual) non-linear nature of tourism strategy and
planning, a definitive break between the two actions can be identified in practice in the
cases investigated here. This is, for example, evident in the fact that both documents have
been released officially, thus marking a formal starting point of implementation.
Furthermore, the content analysis of the minutes of meetings showed that some members
of the community groups ceased to participate after the release of the respective
document, whilst others used this opportunity to become involved. The public policy
literature suggests that stakeholders perceive participating in strategy making as being
more prestigious or rewarding than participating in its implementation (e.g., Dyer, 1999).
Reasons for this lie in increased status in the policy arena (or community) and increased
motivation through being involved in inducing change. While this holds true to some
extent for the planning cases explored here, reasons related to institutional input are more
likely to account for this phenomenon. Indeed, in addition to this interruption of personal
relationships, organisational issues created by government institutions arose. Some
government agencies (the then New Zealand Tourism Board for Stewart Island; local
government institutions in the Catlins) withdrew their presence and support from the
policy processes. This created a planning and implementation environment where
community stakeholders were in some respects on their own and found themselves in a
situation where whole new stakeholder structures needed to be created and maintained
without support from institutions that had been there previously. Thus, by withdrawing
their support from an ongoing process, government institutions significantly change the
implementation setting, sometimes with unforeseeable results that do not allow for a
proactive solution.
Both the content analysis of documents as well as the interviews showed that in the
policy environments investigated here actors were more likely to be determined early in
192 J.N. Albrecht

the process. Depending on their knowledge of the setting and their connection in the
stakeholder network, some actors strongly influenced strategy making and had a
significant role in implementation. While this has the advantage of getting a motivated
group together early on, it carries the danger that issues that are characteristic for
bottom-up planning situations occur (for example, having a core group that does not
represent the majority of stakeholders in the setting). Even though the implementation
process on Stewart Island is the result of a top-down planning approach, both
implementation processes in the case study regions display characteristics of bottom-up
planning environments. Both case studies show that the groups that were assembled
during plan making and their behaviour and image prevented others from participating
and created a feeling of exclusion.
The community group in the Catlins, in particular, was perceived as ‘closed’ and
exclusive during strategy implementation; in the words of one interviewee:
“People perceive those promotions and strategy groups as pretty much
closed-door. You know, very very cliquish and hard to access. Which is
unfortunate because […] everybody should be able to access that and put their
ideas forward. But I don’t think a lot of people would feel comfortable doing
that.”
A comparable development becomes apparent on Stewart Island; the implementation
environment is shaped by the tourism operators and business owners on the island;
therefore, significant individuals’ interest in involvement with the tourism strategy was
closely related to their respective business interests. One public sector representative
stated that there were “seven to ten people who […] made things happen” and who would
single-handedly organise and lead implementation:
“I suppose the view that we came to largely around implementation was that if
the key movers and shakers were convinced they would make things happen
to the extent they were comfortable with. And by and large, they were the
people that had the capital, the infrastructure, the personal motivation to
succeed and they were key leaders in the community.”
Such statements (equivalent statements have been made by four additional interviewees)
suggest wide-reaching implications for perception of the strategy process; they highlight
both the lack of involvement of stakeholders external to the communities and the power
that some community groups can exercise in some settings. Crucially, the early planning
stages and how they were perceived by outsiders impact strongly on stakeholder
involvement and future strategy implementation. However, this is not so much a
deliberate choice but rather the outcome of a deductive process whereby potential
stakeholders prioritise their possible involvement and decide for or against it.
The involvement of government institutions is also often the result of personal priorities
and thus can be serendipitous, unregulated and sometimes even random.

7 Introduction and explanation of new framework

Wray (2009, p.673) uses an “integrated issue lifecycle approach” to follow and map
policy evolution in a destination over time. Whilst the aim of tracing tourism policy
and outcomes over time in both studies is similar, the outcomes differ conceptually.
Wray (2009) provides an overview of policy evolution and classifies various types
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 193

of action and its acceptance by stakeholders. This work aims to develop and introduce a
framework for tourism strategy implementation. To develop a framework that addresses
both the conceptual framework used in this study as well as emergent themes
that are specific to the tourism context, it was crucial to that data analysis was conducted
twice, the first time using inductive coding, the second time employing content
analysis guided by the theoretical framework of the study, the Public Policy Flow Model.
This introduction of the tourism implementation framework will use some general
observations as the starting point; then, the elements of the proposed framework
will be discussed in more detail.
The public policy literature (e.g., de Leon and de Leon, 2002; Saetren, 2005) as well
as the tourism literature (e.g., Hall, 2009) mention top-down implementation, bottom-up
implementation and hybrid models as broad paradigms in implementation research.
This research suggests that these paradigms apply to and reflect strategy-making
processes and the way initial implementation was envisaged during strategy making,
but not necessarily actual implementation processes (as reflected in the discussion
of stakeholder involvement in the section “Stakeholders, their roles and actions”).
A framework that addresses tourism implementation processes in a broader sense
therefore needs to encompass top-down approaches, bottom-up approaches and
everything in between.
The following description and discussion is structured according to the elements of
the Public Policy Flow Model. The Tourism Implementation Framework (Figure 4)
proposed here also uses the stakeholders in a policy process as starting point; however,
the stakeholder groups have been adapted accordingly. Public sector agencies, who are
presumed to act according to their professional roles and tasks, establish the political and
economic environments in which tourism takes place. The private sector, the tourism
businesses and individual operators, generally become involved with tourism to pursue
economic interests; yet, their choice of business tends to reflect personal interests and
values. The third category of stakeholders, labelled Third Sector/Community Groups,
encompasses all individuals and groups that become involved with tourism without any
economic or governance interests. Their involvement is generally based on their interests
and personal values only; it is not always in favour of tourism (development), thus
potentially impacting strongly on tourism and its governance and development in a
destination. All stakeholders impact collectively on the economic, social, environmental
and cultural context of tourism. Their inclusion in this model is based on both the
literature on stakeholder involvement in tourism and tourism management (as explained
in the section “The model in the context of tourism”) as well as stakeholders in the case
studies that form the basis of this discussion and framework development (see section
“The project: two case studies in New Zealand”).
The action that is taken by the stakeholders in the setting can differ. The ability to
take ‘immediate action’ suggests that the stakeholder commands all resources necessary
to attempt a task. This is usually associated with stakeholders in a governance
role who possess such resources but, as the previous discussion shows, it can also be
based on other resources such as information or local credibility. Local actors,
for example community groups, can therefore under certain circumstances be in a
position to take immediate action (as explained in “Implementation processes and
outcomes”). As found in “Stakeholders, their roles and actions”, this is more likely when
public sector stakeholders are not regularly involved in the implementation process.
Business people who base their involvement on their ‘vested interests’ also take
194 J.N. Albrecht

immediate action but only if it suits their business goals. Where stakeholder involvement
is irregular and infrequent, ‘exchange and interaction’ between stakeholders is necessary
to accomplish goals. As explained in the section “Implementation processes and
outcomes”, however, this can be difficult to achieve. The case studies presented here
show that reasons for this can lie in social, interpersonal, geographical and political
aspects. Issues bringing about ‘Veto and conflict’ are, therefore, possible and these are
associated with private sector actors as well as third sector and community groups and
individuals. The local-level case studies investigated in this study both displayed cases
of NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) attitudes by individual residents or resident groups.
As actions that can be carried out by any of the stakeholders reflect the power they can
exercise in the policy setting, the notion of power does not need to be explicitly included
in this model.

Figure 4 Tourism implementation framework: actors, action and processes

Outcomes are determined by a number of factors that are relevant for decision-making
and (the ability to) taking action. “Information, knowledge”, stakeholders’ “experience,
skills”, “trust” between stakeholders and their “autonomy, dependence” in decision-
making and action are discussed in the context of this study in findings section
“Stakeholders, their roles and action”. As explained previously, these factors significantly
impact not only on the stability of stakeholder relationships but also on stakeholder
ability to implement goals. Trust, either as a result of previous collaboration or the
reputation of an actor, therefore plays a significant role. Qualitative evidence of the
importance of trust between stakeholders and its implications during strategy
implementation can be found in the section “Implementation processes and outcomes”.
All of these factors are, alongside the respective degree of autonomy, employed as a
resource that may determine an actor’s involvement. As such, there is not much
difference between the three groups of potential stakeholders shown in the top
of the figure. Indeed, as the case studies investigated in this research project
demonstrate, in some cases the three groups of stakeholders can overlap substantially.
For example, staff members of government agencies potentially reside in the
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 195

communities in question and may therefore have interests as professionals and private
individuals (Bowles and Gintis, 2000).
Most importantly, this framework also incorporates different new outcomes of public
policy. These include ‘coincidence’ (see, for example, Baum, 1994 on unplanned
‘success stories’) ‘deviance from plan’, which occurred very often, ‘delay’ and ‘decisive
event’. Events labelled ‘coincidence’ can result serendipitously from circumstances
described earlier, namely unstable stakeholder relationships. Describing how “ideas and
issues […] ‘float’ around in policy arenas and communities before some come into
prominence and are given attention”, Wray (2009, p.674) provides a probable account
for such events. The findings section on “Implications of strategy making” proposes
that sporadic involvement of individual stakeholders as well as organisations can
result in coincidental events that account for interrupted implementation processes and
changing priorities over the course of implementation. The withdrawal of the New
Zealand Tourism Board from tourism strategy implementation on Stewart Island is an
example of this. Deviance from an original plan, delays and blockages are common in
implementation processes. Changes to the original strategy or project to be implemented
generally occur when changes in the implementation setting make it necessary, for
example through a modified institutional structure, changes to funding models or changes
in group leadership. Delays and blockages have been identified in this study in situations
where support from outside the core group of implementation stakeholders was required,
for example funding or political support from public sector stakeholders. Another
significant inclusion in the framework is the category ‘decisive event’. This category
includes both foreseen and unforeseen events that change the implementation trail.
As this framework posits tourism strategy implementation as an ongoing non-linear
process, the release of a strategy document can be seen as such an event.
Implementation processes overlap in time and the proposed framework needs to take
this into account. Indeed, while some projects are implemented swiftly and produce
feedback that can potentially inform subsequent projects, this framework makes no
distinction between “policy environment” and “interaction milieu, implementation
environment” as the original model by Simmons et al. (1974).

8 Conclusion: The tourism implementation framework in theory

and practice

This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of implementation in tourism.

The findings presented are presented in form of an inclusive framework that aims to
allow for a variety of processes and stakeholders. Some components of the framework
were derived from Simmons et al.’s Public Policy Flow Model and adapted to the tourism
context according to the key findings of this study. The choice of stakeholders
groups and the incorporation of their roles and values have been changed accordingly;
the factors that inform decision-making and action have been changed based on the
findings of this study, notably, on the significance of stakeholder relationships, the skills
and experience that actors bring to the process and their degrees of information and
knowledge of the setting. The limitations that this incurs will be discussed later
in this section. Further, the types of possible actions taken by stakeholders as well
as the related outcomes have also been adapted to suit and mirror the context of tourism
and reflect stakeholder involvement; in particular, the focus on communities and
196 J.N. Albrecht

volunteer involvement is reflected (McAreavey, 2006). Implications of the feedback

circle are discussed.
This study shows that employing top-down management techniques would not be
ideal in such tourism-planning environments where higher government levels are both
spatially and in terms of their interests detached from the actual target area. Furthermore,
the aforementioned agencies employed a high degree of discretion in their work.
Accordingly, issues pertaining to bottom-up planning and street-level bureaucracy can
arise; these include unclear aims related to both the prioritisation of objectives
and means to achieve them, resulting risks of conflict and non-implementation.
At a conceptual level, however, the case studies reveal no need to distinguish between
top-down and bottom-up perspectives. As most decisive events and decisions were
ultimately induced and carried out in a pragmatic way and for pragmatic reasons, the
continuum between political and administrative guidance and local autonomy in tourism
policy implementation was not so much a hindrance that needed to be actively overcome
but rather part of the setting.
The existence of a strategy or planning document (generally a product during a
planning process rather than an incentive to induce implementation) did not emerge as a
central guiding feature of implementation processes. While a planning document proved
useful as a reminder of planning requirements, the recommendations were not rigidly
adhered to in either case study. Instead, actors at all levels were identified as shaping both
processes and the setting itself through their interests and resulting actions. This did not
occur according to a written document; rather, all stakeholders employed different
implementation styles, techniques and strategies depending on their skills, experience and
interests. The division of strategy making and implementation stages is, therefore, not
useful in either conceptual or practical considerations. Even though the phases are often
at least partially sequential in chronological terms, their conceptual separation is not
supported by the findings of this study.
The role of significant individuals was highlighted by the results of this study.
This was previously observed by Reed (1999, p.350) who stated that
“Theories of collaboration and adaptive management have acknowledged the
importance of the human factor in plan creation and implementation. Yet, they
have not explicitly acknowledged the role that individuals can bring […].”
This project suggests, however, that even if organised in (small) groups, individuals bring
their experience, connections, interests and agendas to the process and thus ‘make or
break’ tourism strategy implementation. Significant individuals can indeed impact on the
perception of a group of actors in an implementation process. Consequently, trust in
community groups can potentially also largely depend on individuals as opposed to the
group’s work.
Indeed, any political and administrative framework of tourism strategy implementation
is therefore a fragile one. On paper, both implementation processes occur in a firm
bureaucratic structure. However, the government agencies are, as is frequently the case in
tourism management and planning, not concerned primarily with tourism but rather
with general administration, economic development or conservation of the natural
environment. However, as some actors are not actively involved in the tourism industry
but represent interests related to the protection of the social and natural environment,
their views and actions have the potential to be anti-tourism development and therefore
they evoke conflict.
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 197

As with any research, the results of this study are not without limitations. It is subject
to limitations commonly associated with case study research, namely the provision
of isolated insights that are relevant for specific regions or cases. The two case studies
are tourism strategies in rural areas; its applicability to urban contexts can, therefore,
be questioned. However, as stakeholder interactions and relationships are evidently a
vital factor in implementation in tourism, the point of difference may not so much lie in
the implementation context but in stakeholder structures. While this can mean that the
framework may be meaningfully applied to some denser contexts, it can also mean that it
is not apposite for all rural areas and implementation contexts. The same considerations
hold true for the government levels at which the research was conducted. Whereas most
findings immediately draw from and relate to the community environment where most
implementation decisions have been made, the framework’s applicability needs to be
judged carefully based on implementation environment and context. One potential
limitation relates to the conceptual level and the exclusion of power in the framework.
The tourism implementation framework assumes that power is being expressed through
stakeholders’ decisions and actions. While this is a useful perspective for an investigation
of processes and outcomes, it lacks insights into stakeholder motivation and cannot
explain their decision-making.
This research provides further insights into the practice of tourism strategy
implementation, an area that is still under-researched. The findings support the argument
that not only individuals, their roles and values but also their previous experiences and
skills shape implementation in tourism significantly and in a way that current policy and
strategy making does not take into account. While this study can only confirm this for the
community level, literature outside of tourism suggests that it may hold true for other
government levels as well (Reynolds et al., 2006). The allocation of resources to support
implementation processes only had a secondary role in the settings investigated here.
Both case study regions showed that actor collaboration and agreement can be equally,
if not more, important than external support and funding. This is particularly prevalent
where stakeholders have vested interests.
Implications for the practice of implementation in tourism are manifold. Particular
emphasis should be placed on early stakeholder awareness, engagement and involvement.
Indeed, actors who become involved in a policy process early are more likely to be well
informed, have a better chance to expand their relevant skills and to develop relationships
with other actors. This does not only call for an early involvement as has been
highlighted in the tourism literature before but also for a higher integration of policy or
strategy development and implementation. A deliberate effort to avoid interruptions in
the policy process such as time lags and changes in the institutional or funding structures
can prove beneficial for the implementation of tourism strategy.

References
Akehurst, G. (1998) ‘Tourism planning and implementation in the polish city of Kalisz’,
in Laws, E., Faulkner, B. and Moscardo, G. (Eds.): Embracing and Managing Change in
Tourism International Case Studies, Routledge, London, pp.49–69.
Augustyn, M.M. and Knowles, T. (2000) ‘Performance of tourism partnerships: a focus on York’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.341–351.
Baum, T. (1994) ‘The development and implementation of national tourism policies’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.185–192.
198 J.N. Albrecht

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2000) ‘How communities govern: the structural basis of prosocial
norms’, in Ben-Ner, A. and Putterman, L. (Eds.): Economics, Values, and Organization,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.206–230.
de Leon, P. and de Leon, L. (2002) ‘What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative
approach’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp.467–493.
Dodds, R. (2007a) ‘Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: lessons from the case of calvià,
Spain’, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.296–322.
Dodds, R. (2007b) ‘Sustainable tourism policy – rejuvenation of a critical strategy initiative’,
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.277–298.
Downard, P. and Mearman, A. (2004) ‘On tourism and hospitality management research:
a critical realist proposal’, Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp.107–122.
Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2007) Tourism Planning and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, Australia,
Milton.
Dyer, C. (1999) ‘Researching the implementation of educational policy: a backward mapping
approach’, Comparative Education, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.45–61.
Easterling, D.S. (2005) ‘The residents’ perspective in tourism research’, Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.45–62.
Edgell, D.L., DelMastro Allen, M., Smith, G. and Swanson, J.R. (2008) Tourism Policy and
Planning Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Elsevier, Oxford.
Elliott, J. (1997) Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management, Routledge, London.
Etzioni, A. (1986) ‘Mixed scanning revisited’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 46,
January–February, pp.8–14.
Feick, R.D. and Hall, G.B. (2000) ‘The application of a spatial decision support system to
tourism-based land management in small island states’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39,
pp.163–171.
Fennell, D.A. (2006) ‘Tourism program planning: blending recreation and tourism through
experience’, in Cuckier, J. (Ed.): Tourism Research: Policy, Planning and Prospects,
Department of Geography, Waterloo, pp.119–154.
Fox, C.J. (1990) ‘Implementation research: why and how to transcend positivist methodologies’,
in Palumbo, D.J. and Calista, D. (Eds.): Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening up
the Black Box, Greenwood Press, New York, pp.199–212.
Gunn, C.A. and Var, T. (2002) Tourism Planning – Basics Concepts Cases, 4th ed., Routledge,
New York.
Hall, C.M. (1999) ‘Rethinking collaboration and partnership: a public policy perspective’, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7, Nos. 3–4, pp.274–289.
Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics – Policy, Power and Place, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Hall, C.M. (2008) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes & Relationships, 2nd ed., Pearson
Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Hall, C.M. (2009) ‘Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism
policy’, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.235–245.
Hall, C.M. (2010) ‘Power in tourism: tourism in power’, in Macleod, D. and Carrier, J.G. (Eds.):
Tourism, Power and Culture: Anthropological Insights, Channel View Publications, Bristol,
pp.199–213.
Hall, C.M. and Valentin, A. (2005) ‘Content analysis’, in Ritchie, B.W., Burns, P.M. and
Palmer, C.A. (Eds.): Tourism Research Methods Integrating Theory with Practice, CABI
Publishing, Wallingford, pp.191–209.
Hall, P. (1980) Great Planning Disasters, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
 Towards a framework for tourism strategy implementation 199

Hill, M. and Hupe, P. (2002) Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and Practice,
Sage Publications, London.
Hjern, B. (1982) ‘Implementation research – the link gone missing’, Journal of Public Policy,
Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.301–308.
Jamal, T. and Stronza, A. (2009) ‘Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas:
stakeholders, structuring and sustainability’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp.169–189.
Jenkins, C.L. (2006) ‘Tourism development: policy, planning and implementation issues in
developing countries’, in Cuckier, J. (Ed.): Tourism Research: Policy, Planning and
Prospects, Department of Geography, Waterloo, pp.21–30.
Kettl, D.F. (1990) ‘The perils – and prospects – of public administration’, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp.411–419.
Lai, K., Li, Y. and Feng, X. (2006) ‘Gap between tourism planning and implementation: a case of
China’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp.1171–1180.
Lindblom, C.E. (1959) ‘The science of ‘muddling through’’, Public Administration Review,
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.79–88.
Lindblom, C.E. (1979) ‘Still muddling, not yet through’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 39,
No. 6, pp.517–526.
McAreavey, R. (2006) ‘Getting close to the action’, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.85–103.
Murphy, P.E. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach, Methuen, London.
Murphy, P.E. and Murphy, A.E. (2004) Strategic Management for Tourism Communities, Bridging
the Gaps, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
New Zealand Tourism Board (1997) Stewart Island Tourism Strategy – A Strategy for Sustainable
Growth and Development, New Zealand Tourism Board, Wellington.
Pansiri, J. (2005) ‘Pragmatism: a methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in
tourism’, Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.191–206.
Pansiri, J. (2006) ‘Doing tourism research using the pragmatism paradigm: an empirical example’,
Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.223–240.
Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Pearce, D.G. (2000) ‘Tourism plan reviews: methodological considerations and issues from
Samoa’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.191–203.
Pforr, C. (2001) ‘Tourism policy in Australia’s northern territory: a policy process analysis of its
tourism development masterplan’, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4, Nos. 2–4, pp.275–307.
Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A. (1973) Implementation – How Great Expectations in Washington
are Dashed in Oakland: or, Why it’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at all. This Being
a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by Two Sympathetic Observers
Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes, 1st ed., University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Reed, M. (1999) ‘Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent tourism
settings’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7, Nos. 3–4, pp.331–355.
Reynolds, S.J., Schultz, F.C. and Hekman, D.R. (2006) ‘Stakeholder theory and managerial
decision-making: constraints and implications of balancing stakeholder interests’, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 64, pp.285–301.
Sabatier, P.A. (1985) ‘What can we learn from implementation research?’, in Kaufmann, F.X.,
Majone, G. and Ostrom, V. (Eds.): Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector,
de Gruyter, Berlin, pp.313–326.
Saetren, H. (2005) ‘Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation:
out-of-fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant’, The Policy Studies
Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.559–582.
200 J.N. Albrecht

Simmons, R.H., Davis, B.W., Chapman, R.J.K. and Sager, D.D. (1974) ‘Policy flow analysis: a
conceptual model for comparative public policy research’, The Western Political Quarterly,
Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.457–468.
Simpson, M.C. (2008) ‘Community benefit tourism initiatives – a conceptual oxymoron?’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 29, pp.1–18.
Thomas, D.R. (2006) ‘A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data’,
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.237–246.
University of Otago: Department of Tourism (2004) Catlins Tourism Strategy, University of Otago,
Dunedin.
Veal, A.J. (2002) Leisure and Tourism Policy and Planning, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Winter, S. (2003) ‘Implementation perspectives: status and reconsideration’, in Peters, B.G. and
Pierre, J. (Eds.): Handbook of Public Administration, Sage Publications, London, pp.212–222.
Wisansing, J., Simmons, D.G. and McIntosh, A. (2004) ‘Community driven tourism marketing:
tensions towards implementation & lessons learned from Thailand’, Paper presented at the 2nd
Asia Pacific CHRIE Conference & the 6th Biennial Conference on Tourism in Asia,
27–29 May, Phuket, Thailand.
World Tourism Organisation (WTO) (1994) National and Regional Tourism Planning:
Methodologies and Case Studies, Routledge, London.
Wray, M. (2009) ‘Policy communities, networks and issue cycles in tourism destination systems’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.673–690.