ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

From chaos to cohesion—Complexity in tourism structures:

An analysis of New Zealand’s regional tourism organizations
Anne Zahra!, Chris Ryan
Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Waikato Management School, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand
Received 13 October 2005; accepted 21 June 2006

Abstract

This paper discusses chaos theory and provides a brief description of chaos and complexity theory. It notes past applications in
tourism research with specific reference to the work of Russell and Faulkner relating to Australia’s Gold Coast. In this paper, the concept
is discussed with reference to regional tourism organizations in New Zealand. Both cases provide examples of complexity, attractors and
dampeners, and feedback loops that limit change. It is suggested that one important contribution of chaos and complexity theory is that
it provides a language to help identify the components of, and change within, a social system. The paper concludes that inherent in a
complex system lies the notion that truly complex social phenomena embrace the linear, stable and predictable along with change, the
dynamic, new, and unpredictable and even symbolic meaning.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Chaos; Complexity; Systems; Regional tourism organizations; New Zealand

1. Introduction The purposes of the paper are thus:

This paper comprises two sections. The first is a
discussion of chaos and complexity theory that provides
an introduction to the concepts associated with these terms
with reference to the study of tourism. The second section
of the paper describes processes of change pertaining to
New Zealand’s Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs)
with a view to apply these schemas. Faulkner and Russell
(1997, 2000), Faulkner and Vikulov (2001), and McKerch-
er (1999) have all argued that complexity theory can help
explain structural processes in tourism. This paper
examines whether these theories are indeed of help in
understanding the nature of the changes that have taken
place. It can be argued that linear developmental models
fail to capture the complexities of the political as well as
industrial structures within which RTOs operate. Thus,
alternative approaches are required to avoid situations
where the story telling of structural change can only be
descriptive in nature.
!Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 7 858 5087; fax: +64 7 838 4331.
E-mail address: annezara@waikato.ac.nz (A. Zahra).
a. review the basic premises underlying complexity theory
within the social sciences;
b. discuss their application to tourism research by refer-
ence to the tourism literature; and
c. assess the value of the concepts in seeking to explain the
changing history of regional tourism organizations in
New Zealand. This requires an outline history of these
changes and this is provided.
Above all, the purpose of the article is to provide a
description of complexity theory for those unfamiliar with
the issues, and to discuss through the case study of New
Zealand’s system of RTOs and the changes they have
incurred, the extent to which the concepts of complexity
theory help understand structural change in tourism.
2. Chaos and complexity
Axelrod and Cohen (1999) argue that chaos and
complexity theories differ. Chaos deals with situations
such as turbulence, that lead to disorganized and

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.06.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
unmanageable systems. Complexity theory deals with
systems that have many interacting agents and although
hard to predict, these systems have structure and permit
improvement. Jennings (2001) claims that chaos theory is
being challenged by complexity theory. On the other hand,
McKercher (1999) treats chaos and complexity as compa-
nions describing how complex systems function and this
view is supported by Byrne (1998), Lewin (1993), Faulkner
and Russell (1997), and Russell and Faulkner (2004).
In popular language, chaos is associated with anti-order.
However, scientific usage views chaos as ‘not-order’ which
may contain and/or precede order (Hayles, 1991). Waldrop
(1992) sees complexity as the emerging science at the edge
of order and chaos. Hayles (1991) unifies these two
definitions by stating that the concept of chaos represents
extremely complex information rather than an absence of
order in social science research. Faulkner and Russell
(2000) state that chaos is a creative stage that leads to a
new, more complex order, and this process is the linkage
between chaos and the notion of complexity.
Chaos theory takes into account the fact that the whole
is greater than the sum of the parts and that systems and
organizations are dynamic, complex and synergistic. The
application of chaos theory in the social sciences has
developed from advances in mathematics and systems
biology. For the mathematician, chaos is a state in which
one cannot be certain of what is going to happen next, even
when there is a good grasp of what is happening in the
present (Legge, 1990). From a mathematical perspective,
chaos theory is often associated with fractal mathematics,
which produces shapes that are systematic even whilst
components are uncertain in outcome as to form.
A comparatively simple example is provided by the
formula
X t!1 ¼ rxt ð1 ! xt Þ. (1)
For any value of r between 0 and 1, the solution will
rapidly converge on zero for any value of x0 between 0 and
1. If r is raised to values between 1 and 3, the solution
converges on
x1 ¼ 1 ! 1=r. (2)
For values of r above 3, for any other value of xN the
solution will no longer converge. Initially, there is an
oscillation and then cycles of values will appear until after a
certain point chaotic values occur only for those values to
subsequently reappear in an oscillating state before again
repeating cycles of oscillation and chaos (Legge, 1990).
Although the system is unpredictable and individual
behaviour is highly complex ‘because of some inbuilt
constraints in the totality the end effect is within
boundaries, there is non-repetitive repetitiveness’ (Nilson,
1995, p. 20). This is illustrated by fractal mathematics
where the value ‘1’ poses a boundary as additive functions
of above and below that value approach either a value of
zero or infinity. The value of ‘1’ about a point of origin acts
as the boundary between these two differing options.
855
The order that emerges from chaos is generally described
in terms of ‘strange attractors’ (Byrne, 1998). Lorenz (1993,
p. 206) defines an attractor as, ‘in a dissipative system, a
limit set that is not contained in any larger limit set, and
from which no orbits emanate’ where an orbit is a spatial
representation of a series of states. An attractor in
geometry thus has a pattern but is dynamic; it has twists,
turns and reverses (Young, 1991). Strange attractors have
fractal dimensions. In geometry, a fractal is the measure of
the irregularity of the shape of an object; it is neither a
straight line nor a smooth curve. Fractal geometry is
associated with chaos theory where ‘in nature, whenever a
chaotic process leaves a permanent result, that result seems
to be a fractal shape. The chaotic pounding of the ocean on
the shoreline leaves a fractal coast’ (Legge, 1990, p. 132). In
a business context, strange attractors have been likened to
a common vision, sense of meaning, strategy or value
system that drives people to achieve a common goal. This
often leads to a system managing itself, often in an
unknowing manner towards a common goal, but it is
difficult to predict the future position of the system
(McKercher, 1999).
Another feature of complexity theory is that systems that
have a chaotic dynamic develop through a pattern of
bifurcations. Lorenz (1993, p. 206) defines a bifurcation as
‘an abrupt change in the long-term behaviour of a system,
when the value of a constant is changed from below to
above some critical value.’ Bifurcations are connected to
fractal phase-shape in that they move out of the linear
realm and instability begins and nonlinearity sets in
(Young, 1991). As one gets close to the bifurcation points,
the values of fluctuations increase dramatically. This leads
to the butterfly effect in which a small change can lead to a
significant change in the system. The butterfly metaphor
has been borrowed from weather forecasting. Lorenzo, an
atmospheric physicist, discovered this:
phenomena when he re-ran some weather data by re-
inputting print-out results which were accurate to three
decimal places instead of to the six the computer used in
internal calculations. Re-inputting the data produced
very different outcomes because the measures differed in
the fourth decimal place (Byrne, 1998, p. 19).
Lorenzo’s work highlights two components; first that
small differences result in significant differences over time
(his original discovery coming from adjusting his climate
model to make predictions from the third instead of sixth
decimal point) and second, that, by mapping topographies
of series, apparent chaotic systems produced ordered
patterns from the oscillations recorded in time series
(Gleick, 1988). These observations offer an explanation
of why elaborate computer programs cannot predict, with
100% accuracy, weather patterns. Yet, even though the
weather is unpredictable it remains within a boundary. A
chaotic system is thus dynamic and nonlinear, and it is
hard to predict the outcome of a given input and the
feedback loops this causes. When the feedback is positive
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
856 A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
there is progression; the system moves forward. But
feedback loops do not always produce the same effects
and are not predictable; however, it is complex feedback
systems, creating loops, that are controlling the chaos
system and keeping it within its boundaries (Nilson, 1995).
Traditional scientific rationalism possesses the justifica-
tion that it permits prediction, and more specifically if
linear relationships exist, it becomes possible to discern
underlying ‘laws’ of behaviour (Byrne, 1998). On the other
hand, most systems do not work in a simple linear fashion.
Chaos theory highlights that very few relationships are
linear and nonlinear relationships are more difficult to
fathom and solve than their linear counterparts (Nilson,
1995). The chaotic system is a system in which the
relationship between any two parts, variables, events or
states cannot be predicted and these relationships change
nonlinearly and unpredictably over time (Young, 1991).
On the other hand, concepts based on linearity do not
claim to be representations of the ‘real world’—by
definition they are abstractions and a key feature of
resultant ‘good’ theorization is the degree of parsimony
that is sufficient to permit effective prediction.
2.1. Chaos and complexity theory in social sciences
From the perspective of social science, where does
complexity exist? Byrne (1998) argues that chaos and
complexity theory is based on an ontological realism, that
is, events have existence outside of the researcher. Young
(1991), a postmodernist, argues an opposite perspective,
stating that by definition the ontology revealed by chaos
theory is nonlinear, that there are, as a consequence, no
universal standards or natural and necessary forms in
society, and that all are ‘ human constructs and fit within
the poetics of postmodern social theory’ (p. 297). It has
been argued that most modern social scientists are
reductionists (e.g. Byrne, 1998); that the world, human
behaviour and society are studied as components and parts
of a system that can be disaggregated as befits the scientific
method that commenced in the Enlightenment and the
Industrial Age of the 19th century. However, post-
modernity deconstructs that apparent order and from this
perspective hitherto separate categories combine to form
new realities. Within the tourism industry, past history,
fantasy and place displacement combine to create experi-
ential authenticities of theme parks and cultural represen-
tations as evidenced by Universal Studios and Huis Ten
Bosch, to cite but two examples. The first represents an
isolation of a constructed place based on the fantasies of
film, and the second a transplanting of Amsterdam to
Sasebo in Japan to become a location for Japanese
wedding planners. Place and time are dislocated from their
original to form new hybrids of experiential realities with
new objectives differing from those of the original models.
Pastiche engenders its own purpose and experienced
reality. Under such circumstance it can be argued that
empiricist positivism can present only limited understand-
ings, and new theoretical compositions of the playful place
(Hayllar & Griffin, 2005), the role of intimacy (Trauer &
Ryan, 2005) and bounded dragons (a term used to describe
the undulating path of Japanese tourist experiences in
Britain, Takai-Tokunaga, 2004) are being used as con-
structs and metaphors to better understand contemporary
tourism. Given an apparent need for new understandings
of seemingly new tourism phenomena, does chaos theory
aid better understanding?
Consequently, in the social sciences chaos theory
questions positivist assumptions of: (a) hypothesis for-
mulation that leads to predictable outcomes; (b) the
quantification and measurement of dynamics; and (c)
replication of findings and producing a theory of behaviour
that is to be applied to all systems, for all times (Young,
1991). In systems theory, the optimal situation is where
stability and equilibrium are achieved. In a chaotic system,
a small change can lead to a dramatic and unpredictable
outcome (Nilson, 1995). However, dynamic chaotic sys-
tems are not totally out of control and chaos does not
imply a complete lack of order. Systems that are totally out
of control, otherwise known as totally turbulent systems
(Nilson, 1995), move beyond the boundaries within which
chaos theory operates. In chaos theory, the system tends to
work in a seemingly random and complex way, in that each
element in the system may seem to act in an independent
manner, but the system as a whole does not pass certain
boundaries. Thus, chaos/complexity is evolutionary, deal-
ing with processes that are fundamentally historical. Byrne
(1998) states that one needs to combine the two themes of
complexity: evolutionary development and holistic sys-
tems. This is demonstrated when looking at change over
time.
At the points of evolutionary development through
history, the new systems which appear (a better word
than ‘emerge’ because it is not gradualist in implication)
have new properties which are not to be accounted for
by the elements by which they can analysed (i.e. they are
holistic), or by the content of their precursors. (Byrne,
1998, p. 15).
To summarize, chaos and complexity theory within
social science is characterized by:
1. Ontological realism.
2. The living systems metaphor. Behaviour cannot always
be predicted and sees real-life systems as unpredictable
yet ordered.
3. An evolutionary development of systems is feasible,
but is subject to abrupt changes of direction.
4. Systems and relationships are nonlinear, complex and
difficult to predict.
5. Systems are inherently unstable but feedback loops can
keep the system within boundaries.
6. The Butterfly effect describes a situation where a small
change can precipitate a chain reaction that cumulates
in a significant change in the system.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
7. A ‘bottom up synthesis’ exists whereby individual
agents driven by simple rules provide the basis for the
emergence of complex dynamic systems (Casti, 1994).
8. Individual differences and random externalities provide
the driving force for variety, adaptation and complex-
ity.
9. Life is viewed as involving energy, force or spirit that
transcends mere matter. An ‘edge of chaos’ exists,
analogous to a phase shift in physics, whereby a system
is in a state of tenuous equilibrium on the verge of
collapsing into a rapidly changing state of dynamic
evolution, and
10. Order emerges out of chaos, and vice versa.
2.2. Chaos and complexity in tourism research
Faulkner and Russell (1997) present chaos and com-
plexity as an alternative framework to explain tourism
phenomena because of deficiencies in understanding
existing systems that dissect them into their component
parts and then assume that the relationships between
these parts are stable and static. For example, while
Butler’s (1998) concept of the destination life cycle
‘explains’ resort development, it neither wholly explains
why some destinations do not fully develop, or why the
time taken to reach stages can vary. Yet neither is his
system deterministic. Destinations can rejuvenate, they
do not automatically decline. Choy (1992) has referred to
scalloped shaped cycles as individual stages can accel-
erate and decelerate prior to transformation into the next
stage. Prideaux (2000, 2004) has presented an analysis
based on demand and supply factors that seeks to
operationalize the concept with reference to demand,
prices and entrepreneurs, but also notes his model of the
Resort Development Spectrum ‘describes a process that is
subject to frequent and often unanticipated change
(Prideaux, 2000, p. 239). The publications by Channel
View Press (2005)—2 volumes on the destination life
cycle—provide several illustrations of non-deterministic
systems at work. Indeed, was Butler an advocate of
complexity theory before the term became accepted
within tourism literature given that he initially sought
primarily to describe that destinations had life
as a product (Butler, 1998)? Faulkner and Russell
(1997) sought to apply some basic concepts of chaos
and complexity to tourism contexts to better identify the
uneven progress of that life. Some of the examples they
provided included:
The butterfly effect:
terrorism activities in Europe in the 1980s increased
inbound tourism to safe destinations such as Australia;
Bottom up synthesis:
competition between operators providing similar pro-
ducts and cooperative relationships between vertically
integrated providers at a single destination;
857
Edge of chaos (phase shift):
phase shifts in the life cycle of a destination that may be
contrary to traditional life cycle theory e.g. a failure for
the involvement stage to follow an exploration stage; or
entrepreneurial action predating exploration.
For his part, McKercher (1999, p. 429) advocates the use
of the chaos model for tourism because:
(the) complex interplay of the many elements within the
community, along with accommodating a wide array of
external elements explaining why tourism operates in a
non-linear manner. The unpredictable and, therefore,
uncontrollable nature of tourism and the failure of most
organizations to plan effectively for the future is again
indicative of a chaotic system. These factors further
explain why tourism defies top down control, while
offering insights into how public sector organizations can
strive to influence (if not control) the direction of growth.
Edgar and Nisbet (1996) apply chaos and complexity in
a hospitality management context. They question whether
mainstream management concepts such as long-term
strategic planning and forecasting are of use as they
assume an ideal equilibrium, stability and linear causality.
They claim that hospitality organizations are spatially
disaggregated and fragmented and operate in complex and
dynamic environments. Events and change for hospitality
organizations are driven by nonlinear feedback loops, the
organization is pulled between periods of certainty and
control, with uncertainty arising from a drive for innova-
tion, excitement and independence.
Russell and Faulkner (1999) also use chaos/complexity
theory to provide insights into the underlying dynamics of
the history of tourism development and the process of
change by examining entrepreneurial activity in the Gold
Coast of Australia. They link entrepreneurship and chaos
theory in their case study. They found that there was
tension between the entrepreneurs (the chaos makers) and
planners and regulators (the dampeners) who try to
moderate and control change. Periods of rapid change
were characterized by chaos that occurred when the chaos
makers prevailed over the dampeners.
Thus, contrary to the usual representation of the
destination life cycle as presented by Butler’s (1998)
diagrammatic use of the S-shaped curve, tourism develop-
ment is often characterized by nonlinear spurts and
interventions that are significant. Like any open system,
the tourism system can be exposed to exogenous shocks, and
in another paper Faulkner and Vikulov (2001) provide the
example of a natural disaster (the Katherine Flood in
Australia). There was a triggering event, an exceptional flood
that ‘challenged the existing structure, routine operations
and survival of tourism businesses and the regional tourism
association’ (p. 331) and this flood represented a turning
point in the evolution of the destination with both positive
and negative effects. Both at the height of the flood and the
period after were described as fluid, unstable and dynamic
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
858 A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
but arguably the situation returned to stability and evolu-
tionary growth within months of the flood. Discussion by the
second of the authors of this article with the then CEO of
Katherine RTO revealed that the RTO disputed some of
Faulkner and Vikulov’s (2001) interpretations arguing that it
was able to re-establish past patterns by pro-active marketing
in key southern Australian markets (Innes, pers comm,
1997). That is, tried and tested regimes established stable
systems and it was not a case of new dynamics being
established. In terms of more conventional positivistic
modelling, it might be said that the system was inherently
stable and could be accounted for in conventional time series
or regression analysis with dummy variables being intro-
duced to deal with exogenous shocks.
In short therefore, the application of chaos theory in any
social analysis requires proof of more than simply an
exogenous shock to an inherently organized if nonetheless
non-static system. For example, it can be argued that the
destination life cycle theory, with adaptation, has proven
capable of providing a rationale for destination develop-
ment and non-development through the identification of
enabling and inhibiting factors. The value of chaos theory
in tourism settings requires evidence of the change
generating new parameters of action within boundaries
established by ‘attractors’.
In their seminal study Russell and Faulkner (2004)
sought to combine chaos and complexity theory and the
tourism area life cycle model to examine the development
of two Australian destinations and highlight elements of
change turbulence and unpredictability. They align the
tourism area life cycle stage, the entrepreneurship stage and
the chaos state by identifying butterfly triggers, phase
shifts, tenuous equilibrium, positive feedback, sustained
equilibrium, isolated negative loops, bifurcation points and
the edge of chaos.
Nonetheless, while Faulkner and Russell (2000) provide
a prima facie argument that an alternative conceptual
framework for tourism research is chaos and complexity
theory in order to help develop and better understand the
dynamics of change, their case is open to the counter-
charge that the mainstream of tourism research (particu-
larly that relating to econometric forecasting), seems to be
reducing chaos theory to being simply a process of reaction
to external factors such as the pilots’ strike in Australia in
the early 1990s, floods as in the Katherine example or the
September 11th terrorist attacks explicable by the addition
of dummy variables or the use of techniques such as co-
integration which better explain correlated changes by
groups of variables—thereby reducing dependency on
assumptions of independence between predictive variables.
There is a predisposition to locate the impacts of crises
within the domain of complexity theory. Laws and
Prideaux (2005) argue that the existence of events like
SARS, September 11th, the Asian Financial crisis and
similar events like the Bali, Madrid or London bombings
highlight ‘the inadequacy of Newtonian (linear) thinking
with its presumption of stability and predictability (Laws &
Prideaux, 2005, p. 5). They continue ‘A typical large scale
disruption precipitates complex movements away from the
previous relationships’ (Laws & Prideaux, 2005, p. 5) and
then proceed to evoke chaos theory as posing a solution to
propose that scenario building is of use. It can be debated
as to whether this is a correct understanding of chaos
theory. From the perspective of conventional econo-
metrics, there is sufficient evidence that the exogenous
event can be modeled using dummy variables, and that the
tourism industry is resilient to these shocks and past
growth is resumed. The implication is that there does exist
an underlying stable system that permits growth in a
predictable fashion. Complexity theory rests not solely on
the triggering point of an exogenous shock, but on the
presence of bifurcation point where a variable inherent in
the system changes its value. Complexity presupposes
change due to changing values of previous constants within
a system—not simply as a reaction to events outside the
system that change an environment thereby requiring a
system to seek adoptive behaviours—which adaptations
may be of past practices and not the creation of new
actions. Paradoxically, crisis management that requires
proactive and precautionary planning may reinforce the
effectiveness of conventional responses rather than bring
about new directions of action. It is the contention of the
current authors that tourism literature must either more
carefully distinguish between exogenous shocks and
bifurcation of variables inherent within a system, or
alternatively, more carefully construct the nature of the
system being discussed. Thus, for example, from one
perspective SARS is an exogenous shock to a tourism
system that is largely independent of the causes of
respiratory diseases; from another perspective tourism is
an inherent art of a communication system which aids the
transmission of viral infection. As is not uncommon,
analysis and action rest upon problem definition. From
another perspective the implicit argument of these ob-
servations is that, within the social systems of tourism,
neither complexity nor the linear Newtonian analyses are
to be posited as alternatives, rather they exist as
complementary tools in the armoury of social analysis.
In an initial version of this paper, it was objected that
Russell and Faulkner’s discussion of individual entrepre-
neurs on the Gold Coast may be little more than a
restatement of the dictum attributed to Carlyle, namely that
‘history is the story of great men’. To sustain the argument
that the touristic system is incapable of convergence upon a
linear relationship it needs to be shown that Prideaux’s
demand and supply factors represent divergence from trends
that are not re-established but rather become dynamic
systems creating new and unpredictable dimensions. This will
now be discussed with reference to New Zealand’s RTOs.
3. New Zealand’s RTOs
New Zealand has a long history, since 1901, of national
and regional tourism organizations. These have been
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
examined by Pearce (1992), Ryan and Simmons (1999),
Simpson (2003), Ryan and Zahra (2004), and Zahra and
Ryan (2005a). An examination of this literature indicates
numerous twists and turns in their history. For example
there has been, at times, the demise and reappearance of
individual RTOs such as those of Taranaki and the Bay of
Plenty. This history seemingly has at least as much to do
with shifting political fortunes, ideologies and individual
aspirations as with perceived and arguably more objective
structural problems and difficulties being faced by the
industry. In Russell and Faulkner’s terminology, it is a
history of shakers and movers as much as an issue of
growth trends and wider structural developments. The
question is whether the role of changing political fortunes
and personalities is such as to create a dynamism separate
and different to that which can be explained by wider
evolutionary structural change. To some extent, RTOs
might be said to have operated within a non-static but
predictable flow of domestic and international tourism
given the econometric literature on predicting arrivals in
New Zealand (e.g. Turner & Witt, 2001). In itself these
growing numbers of tourists, within the model of the
destination life cycle, provide an imperative for better and
more organized promotion and marketing (Ryan, 2003);
but the individual histories of some RTOs cannot be
wholly explained by such factors. Indeed some have
appeared and disappeared, while to a degree, no common
structure or funding pattern has emerged among the
others. Some, such as those of Rotorua and Wellington
are strong and primarily single bodies, others are based on
an alliance of local authority spending (e.g. Christchurch
and, until 2006, Waikato) while yet others are little more
than an umbrella organization with the main budgets being
held by subsidiary district tourism organizations (e.g. River
Region). From this perspective, a chaotic state might be
said to exist. However, within the Lorenzian conceptuali-
zation of complexity the issue is where do the explanatory
limits to orbits exist? The history of the RTOs appear to
have little to do with tourism flows, which have generally
proven predictable and operate within a comparative static
system reasonably well explained by ARIMA techniques;
at least in the aggregate. Rather their history in New
Zealand is more explicable with reference to local govern-
ment politics, which, given the high dependency on the
local government sector for funding, is not surprising.
As described by Simpson (2003) and Zahra and Ryan
(2005b) there was instability in the mid- to late 1990s for
New Zealand’s RTOs, when the tourism industry was left
predominantly to market forces, with little planned leader-
ship from government. The government leadership that
existed was idiosyncratic in the late 1990s and orientated
toward event promotion such as the America’s Cup and the
Millennium. It was a period when the then Minister of
Tourism was held to have gone beyond the powers of a
Minister by direct interference in the daily running of the
New Zealand Tourism Board, leading to resignations from
the Board and the eventual resignation of the Minister.
859
This instability provoked the tourism industry, through its
peak industry body, the TIANZ and its CEO, to initiate
and generate discussion for the 2010 tourism strategy.
There was a period of instability when the Strategy was
first published because of its radical recommendations,
especially for RTOs, but this in turn provoked change. One
example of the Strategy being a catalyst or bifurcation for
change was the collaboration of RTOs, who had rarely
worked together before on a national basis, resulting in the
decision to form the Regional Tourism Organization New
Zealand (RTONZ). It should be noted that some regional
marketing alliances among neighbouring RTOs existed
prior to this, but this represented a new change in that it
was a conscious decision to respond to political initiatives
over and beyond simple matters of marketing. Another
example of the Strategy being a catalyst for change is that
Local Government New Zealand also responded with a call
to member organizations to better plan the management of
tourism.
Thus, in terms of chaos theory, was the period of the late
1990s one of bifurcation where the value of a constant
changed some critical value? Did the movers and shakers of
Minister, TIA CEO, the Tourism Strategy Group and
others create a dramatic shift that caused a dynamic re-
appraisal of policies? Was there a strengthening of regional
tourism organization that in some way made them
‘different’ as sought by the Tourism 2010 strategic
document? While there have been significant policy shifts
in the period since 1999, many of these changes can be
explained by a change of government and a reaction to the
previous neo-liberal political ideology of minimal govern-
mental intervention in market transactions. By the middle
of the first decade of the 21st century, in spite of references
to new-RTOs in the 2010 strategy, the existing RTOs
continue to function very much as before, international
tourism figures are still primarily determined by economic
determinants of incomes, transport costs and exchange
rates (albeit aided by a dash of good publicity through
Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Tourism
New Zealand’s ability to capitalize upon Hollywood
Oscars—thereby raising the issue as to whether such
reactions are bifurcations or simply further exogenous
events). Additionally, much of the work of both Simpson
(2003) and Zahra (2006) provides ample evidence of
repetition in the concerns and policies that have character-
ized New Zealand’s tourism since the 1970s. Rather than
being complex the debate has a certain cyclical nature with
reference to New Zealand’s tourism structures, and past
discussion still resonates even as tourism numbers continue
to climb.
3.1. So, back to cohesion?
McKercher (1999) assumes that relationships are open
and complex; therefore complexity brings about an innate
level of instability which makes it extremely difficult to
predict accurately the future movement or direction of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
860 A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
organization or the system. In short, does the evidence
from New Zealand support the arguments of Russell and
Faulkner (2004). Or is the history of RTOs simply a history
of personalities?
There is an alternative perspective embodied in the
response to Carlyle’s dictum as reputedly expressed by
Stalin—namely men become great because they encapsu-
late the changes of their time. Why, in Russell and
Faulkner’s thesis, did entrepreneurs like Cavill, Elsey and
others become successful? Free enterprise succeeds when a
market exists for the promise being offered. Without that
market the entrepreneurs would not have been successful.
Increasing disposable incomes, the spread of private
transport systems through car ownership, newer roads,
the emergence of airlines—all contributed to the success of
the Gold Coast. The issue thus arises, why the Gold Coast
and not Coolangatta, the second destination examined by
Russell and Faulkner (2004). Equally within the context of
New Zealand, why is that a RTO like that of Taranaki be
initially successful, yet subsequently disappear only later to
be reborn? It is suggested that tourism in its relationship
with a wider environment is characterized by at least three
dimensions—(a) the industrial structures of the compo-
nents of the industry (transport, accommodation and
attractions) and the degrees of competition that exist
within those components, (b) the formal political systems
within which policies are determined (the degrees of
governmental centralization or devolution) and (c) the
prevailing political ideologies that persist at a given level of
government (from, within western democracies, the left of
centre social democrat perspective to the right of centre
neo-liberal orientation to the market) that help articulate a
rationale for those policies. Arguably the changes noted by
Russell and Faulkner (2004) are located within a nexus of
two linear movements of a developing economic environ-
ment, a political system that permitted decentralization and
local initiative and a flip-flop between primarily two
competing political ideologies. Kerr (2003) has indicated
the importance of political structures in the case of Scottish
devolution while the history outlined above relating to
New Zealand RTOs has been much impacted upon by the
formal political structures and changes of government.
Russell and Faulkner (2004, p. 572) indicate the
importance of the politics as a change dynamic when they
write ‘During the 60s, 70s and part of the 80s, Surfers
Paradise went beyond the situation of a lax regulatory
framework to a point where entrepreneurs co-opted the
regulators by infiltrating the political structures (state and
local) y Thus, state politicians and the councillors were, at
the same time, landowners and developers in an environ-
ment where boundaries between these two roles became
blurred and conflicts of interest were not questioned.’ The
same might be said of other places and at other times. An
early example would be that of Coney Island in New York
State (Stanton, 2005).
It can be argued that, in hindsight, the development of
the Gold Coast was primarily a quasi-linear S shaped
destination life cycle permitted by trends in economics and
social changes in lifestyles made possible by a capture of
comparative static political structures by a given pro-
business group. Coolangatta’s contrary history is simply
explained by a more cautious, conservative council less
open to the blandishments of men such as the Gold Coast
entrepreneurs. In the terminology of Prideaux’s model, the
demand factors were in place; the difference lay in the
supply factors. New Zealand’s history of RTOs is likewise
to a large degree explained by responses by political
structures and those occupying posts at local and national
level. From a functionalist perspective the political system
expresses a consensus emergent from relationship building
and the acceptance and recognition of roles. Reference to
network theory could then explain the power of actors in
any given position in the network. Yet is this a wholly
satisfactory argument? Any paradigm based on rational
structures could not dictate who occupied positions at what
time, or their reference set of political and social ideologies.
The ‘movers and shakers’ appear again—even while the
social structures provide the opportunities and potential-
ities that they exploit. Yet again, it seems tenable to suggest
that each of the apparently contrasting explanations of
social phenomena are complementary for both aid an
understanding of circumstance within their own terms of
reference.
4. Summary and conclusion
The conceptual contribution of chaos theory is that it
takes into account the fact that the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts and that systems and organizations are
dynamic and complex. It is also noted that complexity
requires scale. Scale is here present by reason of the history
being explored (i.e. time is a variable) and the numbers of
regional tourism organizations within a country. Yet
complexity can be perceived within a single organization,
and, from a scientific perspective, within the dripping from
a tap as sudden changes in the speed of a drip can occur. It
was noted that chaos does not imply a complete lack of
order. Although each element in the system may seem to
act in an independent manner, collectively the entire system
functions in an orderly manner as it is governed by a
number of underlying principles, leading to spontaneous
order. Explanations of this ‘order from chaos’ are based on
concepts such as the ‘strange attractor’ and feedback loops
that keep and maintain the system within a set boundary.
In the context of New Zealand, it is possible to describe the
new organization, RTONZ, Local Government New
Zealand’s (LGNZ) interest in tourism in the period
2000–2004 and most importantly funding by the Ministry
of Tourism as ‘strange attractors’. Equally, as noted by
another referee, free enterprise itself may be potentially
subject to nonlinear patterns, and thus RTOs may change
as their private enterprise partners’ wax and wane. These
strange attractors often lead to a system managing itself,
often in an unknowing manner towards a common goal
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
and till date this common goal has been not to loose the
regional and parochial identity of RTOs and so forestall
top down control. However, it is difficult to predict the
future position of the system (McKercher, 1999). For
example, if the Ministry of Tourism fails to fund the
secretariat of RTONZ in the future, if LGNZ place
tourism further down the agenda once again and if the
key players, the movers and shakers, move on, what will
then happen? Already, in the period since 1999, there have
been two changes of CEO at TIA, and LGNZ seems
increasingly reverting to original concerns. In short, it is
possible to discern the re-emergence of prior situations,
which in due course will be found again wanting for the
same reasons that gave rise to the proposals for NewRTOs
in the document, The New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010.
In short, from a period of rapid change it is possible to
discern the re-emergence of past oscillations of changing
relationships between the centre and the periphery.
Another manifestation of chaos and complexity in RTOs
and their process of change is the manifestation of the
butterfly effect. The CEO of the Tourism Industry
Association of New Zealand in the late 1990s took the
initiative to provide leadership and direction for the entire
industry. She herself said that she did not foresee all the
ramifications this initiative would have, especially the
process of study and change envisaged for RTOs (Cough-
lan, pers comm., 2000). The new Ministry of Tourism
under the new Labour government in 1999 could be likened
to a bifurcation in the complex system for the Ministry
supported the initiatives of the CEO and sponsored and
supported the release of the New Zealand Tourism
Strategy 2010 which forced at least the study and analysis
of the role of RTOs. Feedback loops, which till date have
kept the nature and the functions of RTOs within the same
boundaries for 25 years, are also manifested in the
consultative process that is taking place with all 27 RTOs
in New Zealand. This consultative process has been
funded by the Ministry of Tourism. Till date this process
seems to be leading to some change, but not the radical
change of new and fewer RTOs recommended in the 2010
Strategy.
It has been observed that tourist flows themselves are
predictable, and the implications of destination life cycle go
beyond simple relationships of visitor numbers and time to
encompass structural changes. One possible consequence
of this is that possibly there is not one system, but several,
with the system of RTOs being embedded within a wider
system. That wider economic system permits predictable
future tourist forecasting, but at the more local site level
reactions to those flows become less predictable and
reflective of other than general determinants of tourist
demand. Parochialism, personal agendas and ambitions,
and local political processes shape responses to tourism
growth, but these responses are not contained within a
local system, but are as nodal points in a network of
national linkages. If any system is perceived as a network,
then the network responds in manners determined by the
861
number of communication routes, the density of traffic
those routes carry, the direction of traffic flows, the
centrality of individual players and their relationship to
centre and periphery, and the quality of information and
knowledge existing in the network. Local chaotic structures
thus create tensions in a wider network, but the network
may create boundaries that constrain the complexity. Thus,
RTOs may grow and collapse within a wider system of
tourism planning and promotion. In short, while the
pioneering work of Faulkner and his colleagues is of
importance in shaping our understanding of tourism
systems, the complexities may be yet even more complex
than that initially envisaged—with systems being like the
proverbial Russian dolls wherein each contains mirror
images embedded one within the other. But, like perhaps
Russia itself, inherent tendencies continue to reassert
themselves and constrain systems to processes of evolution
rather than abrupt dynamic patterns of change.
Hence, to return to the original question—does an
understanding of complexity theory help? The brief history
of the regional tourism organizations in New Zealand
identifies periods of changes of direction, strange attrac-
tors, nonlinear and dynamic changes, constraints from
system-imposed boundaries that arise due to structural
features such as government, tourism flows, parochialism,
exogenous shocks to tourist flows, and continuing pro-
blems related to funding and tensions in roles. The current
authors were drawn to complexity theory in an attempt to
discern underlying principles in a convoluted history of
regional tourism organizations that formed the subject
matter of the first author’s doctoral studies. The conclusion
finally drawn is that the complexity theory possesses value
by providing a language that helps identify components of
a social system. Small structural changes with possibly
unintended consequences are looked for; the sources of
feedback mechanisms that act as constraints and impose
boundaries to change are also sought. The trigger points
that signal ends of periods of uncertainty and the re-
emergence of a previous order are likewise identified. Just
as the work of primarily European thinkers signaled a new
‘gaze’ and thus language to interpret tourism through post-
modernistic thought, so too the language of complexity
shapes a different means of viewing change. Complexity
theory does not replace previous modes of thought, but
complements those ways of analysis. Indeed, inherent in a
complex systems lies notion that truly complex social
phenomena are equally capable of displaying simulta-
neously the linear, the structures of change and symbolic
meaning—all of which reinforce and complement each
other.
Acknowledgements
The authors would wish to thank the referees for their
constructive comments, and to acknowledge the influence
of the late Bill faulkner.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
862 A. Zahra, C. Ryan / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 854–862
References
Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. (1999). Harnessing complexity: Organizational
implications of a scientific frontier. New York: The Free Press.
Butler, R. W. (1998). Still pedaling along: The resort cycle two decades on.
Paper presented to CAUTHE conference—Progress in tourism and
hospitality research, Gold Coast, Queensland, February 12–15,
Griffith University.
Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An
introduction. London: Routledge.
Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexification. London: Abacus.
Choy, D. (1992). Life cycle models for Pacific Island destinations. Journal
of Travel Research, 30(3), 26–31.
Edgar, D. A., & Nisbet, L. (1996). A matter of chaos–Some issues for
hospitality business. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 8(2), 6–9.
Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (1997). Chaos and complexity in
tourism: In search of a new perspective. Pacific Tourism Review, 1,
93–102.
Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (2000). Turbulence, chaos and complexity in
tourism systems: A research direction for the new millennium. In R.
Faulkner, G. Moscardo, & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism in the 21st century:
Lessons from experience. London: Continuum.
Faulkner, B., & Vikulov, S. (2001). Katherine washed out one day, back
on track the next: A post-mortem of a tourism disaster. Tourism
Management, 22(4), 331–344.
Gleick, J. (1988). Chaos: Making a new science. Cardinal Book. New York:
William Heinemann.
Hayles, N. K. (1991). Chaos and order. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hayllar, B., & Griffin, T. (2005). The precinct experience: A phenomen-
ological approach. Tourism Management, 26(4).
Jennings, J. (2001). Tourism research. Milton Queensland: Wiley.
Kerr, W. R. (2003). Tourism public policy and the strategic management of
failure. Oxford: Pergamon.
Laws, E., & Prideaux, B. (2005). Crisis management: A suggested
typology. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 19(2/3), 1–8.
Legge, J. (1990). Chaos theory and business planning. Melbourne: Schwartz
& Wilkinson.
Lewin, R. (1993). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: Collier
Books.
Lorenz, E. N. (1993). The essence of chaos. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Manage-
ment, 20(4), 425–434.
Nilson, T. H. (1995). Chaos marketing: How to win in a turbulent world.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Pearce, D. G. (1992). Tourism organisations. Harlow, England: Longman.
Prideaux, B. (2000). The resort development spectrum—A new approach
to modeling resort development. Tourism Management, 21(3),
225–240.
Prideaux, B. (2004). The resort development spectrum: The case of the
Gold Coast, Australia. Tourism Geographies, 6(1), 26–58.
Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (1999). Movers and shakers: Chaos makers in
tourism development. Tourism Management, 20(4), 411–423.
Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship, chaos and the
tourism area lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 556–579.
Ryan, C. (2003). The politics of branding cities and regions: The case of New
Zealand. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.). Destination
branding: Creating the unique destination image (pp 66-86) Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Ryan, C., & Simmons, D. (1999). Towards a tourism research strategy for
New Zealand. Tourism Management, 20(3), 305–312.
Ryan, C., & Zahra, A. (2004). The political challenge: The case of New
Zealand tourism organizations. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, &
R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination
proposition (2nd ed, pp. 79–110). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Simpson, K. (2003). And now for the next hundred years: An assessment
of national tourism policy issues in New Zealand. Pacific Tourism
Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(2), 119–138.
Stanton, (2005). Coney Island History Site: http://naid.sppsr.ucla.edu/
coneyisland/, accessed December 1st 2005.
Takai-Tokunaga, N. (2004). A qualitative approach to tourist experience:
A case of japanese tourists in britain. Paper presented at the 10th
APTA conference, Department of International Tourism, Globaliza-
tion and Tourism Research: East meets West, Nagasaki International
University, Sasebo, Nagasaki, Japan.
Trauer, B., & Ryan, C. (2005). Destination image, romance and place
experience—An application of intimacy theory in tourism. Tourism
Management, 26(4).
Turner, L. W., & Witt, S. F. (2001). Forecasting tourism using univariate
and multivariate structural time series. Tourism Economics, 7(2),
135–148.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of
order and chaos. London: Viking.
Young, T. R. (1991). Chaos and social change: Metaphysics of the
postmodern. Social Science Journal, 28(3), 289–306.
Zahra, A. (2006). Regional tourism organisations in New Zealand
1980–2005: Process of transition and change. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Zahra, A., & Ryan, C. (2005a). National tourism organisations—Politics,
functions and form: A New Zealand case study. Anatolia: An
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 16(1), 5–26.
Zahra, A., & Ryan, C. (2005b). Reflections on the research process: The
researcher as actor and audience in the world of regional tourist
organisations. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(1), 1–21.