Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.

2007 13:33 Uhr Seite 6

Refereed Section

Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development

and their Roles: Applying Stakeholder Theory to
Sustainable Tourism Development

E R I C K T. B Y R D

1st submission: October 30, 2006

Accepted: March 15, 2007

Abstract Sustainability has become an important topic and concept in relation to tourism planning and develop-
ment. For sustainable tourism development to be successful stakeholders must be involved in the process.
The questions that should be considered though are: 1) who should be considered stakeholders in tourism
development, and 2) how should planners and developers involve stakeholders in the development of
tourism? In order to provide answers to these questions this paper investigated sustainable tourism devel-
opment and how stakeholder inclusion and involvement are incorporated in the basic concept of sustain-
able tourism development. This investigation was accomplished by reviewing and drawing conclusions from
the literature. The discussion includes thoughts from both management and public participation perspec-
tives. So who should be involved in the sustainable tourism development process? Based on the definitions
that are used for sustainability and sustainable tourism four distinct groups are identified; the present vis-
itors, future visitors, present host community, and future host community.

Key words: Stakeholder theory, sustainable tourism, community participation, tourism policy

1 Introduction Who are the stakeholders in
sustainable tourism development
and what role should they play:
applying stakeholder theory to
sustainable tourism development
The World Commission on the Environ-
ment and Development (WCED) published
Our Common Future, also known as the
Brunndtaland Report, in 1987. This report
formalized the concept of sustainability as
a global issue. Sustainability has become an
important topic and concept in relation to
tourism planning and development
(Inskeep 1991; Southgate & Sharpley 2002;
Yuksel, Bramwell & Yuksel 1999). This fo-
cus is in part due to tourism’s inherent na-
Erick T. Byrd, PhD ture to have both positive and negative ef-
Assistant Professor fects on the a community, the economy,
Department of Recreation, and the environment. Gunn (1994) stated
Tourism, and Hospitality Management that there is no other form of development
University of North Carolina at Greensboro “that has so many far-reaching tentacles as
PO Box 26170 does tourism” (p. 16). Choi & Sirakaya
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170 (2006), Inskeep (1991), and McCool (1995)
United States of America furthered this idea indicating that, if
Phone: +1-336-334-3041 tourism development was planned improp-
Fax: +1-336-334-3238 erly it could destroy the very resources (e.g.
E-Mail: etbyrd@uncg.edu economic, environmental, and social) that
are the foundation of tourism in a commu-
nity. For tourism development to be suc-
cessful, it must be planned and managed in
a sustainable manner (Inskeep 1991; Mc-
Cool 1995; Southgate & Sharpley 2002;
Yuksel, Bramwell & Yuksel 1999).
One main key to the success and imple-
mentation of sustainable tourism develop-
ment in a community is the support of
stakeholders, (e.g. example citizens, entre-
preneurs, and community leaders) (Gunn
1994). A stakeholder is identified as “any
group or individual who can affect or is af-
fected by” tourism development in an area
(Feeeman 1984, p 46). The focus on more
stakeholder participation emphasizes its
ability to handles multiple perceived issues.
The first issue is that tourism development
decisions are made from the top down,
where “experts” make decisions. Often deci-
sions made in this manner are perceived by
the local community as not being reflective
of community interests and opinions. The
second issue is that the decision making sys-
tem is perceived to have competing interests
within itself, and, therefore, the decisions
made are again not reflective of the public’s
interests (Beierle & Konisky 2000). Further-

6 Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007

Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
more, participation can potentially lead to
the avoidance of major conflicts between
stakeholder groups (Healey 1998).
Ioannides (1995) study of Akmas,
Cyprus demonstrated the problems that
can arise when stakeholders are not part of
the planning process. In the planning of
tourism in Akamas, villagers stated that
they were never included in discussions
about tourism development and that the
government did not take their opinions in-
to account while developing the recom-
mendation to establish a national park in
the area. The villagers threatened to take
drastic actions to stop the development of
the national park area. The government
stated, “they avoided soliciting community
opinions fearing it would stir up trouble
among groups (p 590).” Government offi-
cials believed if the plan was kept quiet it
could be completed without much trouble
(Ioannides 1995). This study suggests sus-
tainable tourism development cannot be
achieved if imposed without regarding the
stakeholders’ interests. Other studies (Bri-
assoulis 2002; Robson & Robson 1996)
support Ioannides’ findings that for sus-
tainable tourism development to be suc-
cessful stakeholders must be involved in
the entire process.
In order for stakeholders to be success-
fully included in tourism development, two
specific questions must be answered. These
questions are: 1) who should be considered
stakeholders in tourism development, and
2) how should planners and developers in-
volve the identified stakeholders in the de-
velopment of tourism? The purpose of this
paper was to investigate the roots of stake-
holder involvement and public participa-
tion and how they have been applied in the
tourism literature in relation to sustainable
tourism development. This investigation
will be accomplished by a review of the con-
cepts of stakeholder involvement and public
participation in the public administration,
business management, and tourism litera-
tures. The concepts are then brought to-
gether to identify who the stakeholders are
and how they should be involved in tourism
development to make it more sustainable.
2 Stakeholder participation
The concept of stakeholder participation
has its roots in the business management
and public administration literatures.
Stakeholder participation was not promi-
Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Seite 7
E. T. Byrd: Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and Their Roles
nent in the management literature until
1984 when Freeman wrote Strategic Man-
agement: A Stakeholder Approach. Free-
man (1984) states that an organization can
be characterized by its relationships with
the organization’s stakeholders. Feeeman
(1984) defined a stakeholder as “any group
or individual who can affect or is affected
by the achievement of the organizations
objectives” (p 46). Donaldson and Preston
(1995) refined this definition, stating that
to be identified as a stakeholder, the group
or individual must have a legitimate inter-
est in the organization. Since Freeman’s
first work on stakeholder theory, stake-
holder theory has been incorporated into
business management literature (Clarkson
1995; Donaldson & Preston 1995; Jones
1995; Stoney & Winstanley 2001).
Donaldson and Preston (1995) devel-
oped three aspects to the stakeholder theo-
ry: the descriptive/empirical, the instru-
mental, and the normative (Donaldson &
Preston 1995). The “descriptive/empirical”
aspect of stakeholder theory is used to de-
scribe some characteristic and/or behavior
of an organization or development (e.g. ex-
ample size and type). This aspect is used to
examine and explain the past, present and
future state of affairs of an organization
and its stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston
1995). Based on the descriptive/empirical
aspect, stakeholder theory can describe the
multiple elements of tourism in a commu-
nity, the history of tourism development in
the community, the procedures and poli-
cies that relate to the development and
management of tourism in the area, the
types of attractions in the community, the
overall economic impact to the communi-
ty, the size of the tourism industry in the
community, and the connections between
the different agencies and organizations
that are involved in tourism..
The “instrumental aspect” identifies
the connections, or lack of connections, be-
tween stakeholder management and the
achievement of the organization or devel-
opment’s objectives and goals (Donaldson
& Preston 1995). The instrumental aspect
establishes connections between specific
actions and specific end results. For exam-
ple if a hotel is built in a community then
the hotel room inventory would increase in
the community. This increase then can be
related to changes to occupancy rates in the
community, revenue generated, and occu-
pancy tax collected. Under the instrumen-
tal aspect there is no assumption, however,
that the practices identified will be fol-
lowed or that the results of the actions are
desired (Jones 1995). Using the same exam-
ple of a hotel that is built in the communi-
ty, the occupancy rates could increase, stay
the same, or decrease because of the added
hotel rooms to the inventory while occu-
pancy tax collected increased.
The “normative aspect” is the funda-
mental core of the stakeholder theory. The
normative aspect “is used to interpret the
function of the corporation, including the
identification of moral or philosophical
guidelines for the operation and manage-
ment of corporations” (Donaldson & Pre-
ston 1995, p 71). From the perspective of
the normative aspect, the reasoning behind
an organization participating in an activity
is because it is the right thing to do. Identi-
fication of a stakeholder, from this aspect,
is based on the stakeholder’s interest in the
organization, not the organization’s inter-
est in the stakeholder. The normative as-
pect assumes that all stakeholders have the
right to be treated as an end, and not as a
means to an end (Donaldson & Preston
1995). Based on this assumption, all stake-
holders need to participate in determining
the direction of the organization in which
they have a stake.
Donaldson & Preston (1995) view the
three aspects of the stakeholder theory as
being “nested within each other” (p 74). The
first layer of the theory is its descriptive as-
pect. The descriptive aspect describes the or-
ganization and its relationships to external
organizations and agencies. The second lay-
er of the theory is the instrumental aspect,
which supports the first by its predictive val-
ue. This layer predicts that if specific tasks
are preformed, then specific results will be
achieved (Donaldson & Preston 1995). The
underpinning element of the theory is its
normative aspect. “The descriptive accuracy
of the theory presumes that managers and
other agents act as if all stakeholder inter-
ests have intrinsic value. In turn, recognition
of these ultimate moral values and obliga-
tions give stakeholder management its fun-
damental normative base” (Donaldson &
Preston 1995, p 74). De Lopez (2001) ex-
plains that “stakeholder management es-
sentially consists of understanding and pre-
dicting the behavior and actions of stake-
holders and devising strategies to ethically
and effectively deal with them” (p 48).
The three aspects of stakeholder theory
indicate the need to identify the interest of
all stakeholders. All stakeholders do not
7
Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
Refereed Section
need to be involved equally in the decision
making process, but it does require that all
interests are identified and understood
(Donaldson & Preston 1995). Failure to
identify the interest of even a single prima-
ry stakeholder group may result in the fail-
ure of the process (Clarkson 1995).
3 Stakeholders and policy
development
Stakeholder theory in policy development
can be found in the early ideas of communi-
ty participation and public involvement that
are central in the basic democratic belief that
citizens should decide for themselves how
government and their community should
operate (Fiorino 1990; Nanz & Steffek 2004).
“Democracy is a political ideal that applies
principally to the arrangements for making
binding collective decisions. Such arrange-
ments are democratic if they ensure that the
authorization to exercise public power arises
from collective decisions by the citizens over
whom that power is exercised (Nanz & Stef-
fek 2004, p 316).” According to Crosby, Kel-
ley and Schaefer (1986), stakeholder partici-
pation “is an effort to put a representative
group of the public in dialogue with public
officials so that the officials get the reactions
of the public themselves on a particular sub-
ject” (p 171).
Based on these ideals, stakeholder in-
volvement should begin with identifying a
diverse group of people in the community
and informing them about the issues and
topics (Carmin, Darnall & Mil-Homens
2003; Crosby, Kelly & Schaefer 1986). From
the information that the stakeholders are
given, they should be allowed to make the
recommendations that they believe to be
the most appropriate for their community
(Crosby, Kelley & Schaefer 1986).
The idea of stakeholder inclusion was
formalized in the United States by the 1968
Town and Country Panning Act. This Act
mandated that planners give “adequate pub-
licity to the report of surveys, policies and
proposals; to inform those who may wish to
make representations; and to provide op-
portunities for them to do so” (Carter &
Darlow 1997, p 46). It was not until the
1990s that community participation began
to be widely accepted by planners and man-
agers (Carter & Darlow 1997; Simrell King &
Feltey 1998; Steelman 2001). Most of the
growth in acceptance was at the local levels
of government (Crosby, Kelley & Schaefer
8 Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Seite 8
1986). Curry (2001) suggested that the
growth was due to the “inevitable conse-
quences of a mature democracy placing
more rights and responsibilities on its citi-
zens and less on the state” (p 561). Another
reason for the increase in interest in stake-
holder involvement was the declining trust
the community had in its policy makers
(Simrell King & Feltey 1998). As a result of
the declining trust in policy makers, many
policies and development initiatives now re-
quire some form of community participa-
tion (Carmin, Darnall, Mil-Homens 2003).
4 Types of stakeholder participation
Stakeholder participation can be facilitated
or implemented in different forms, both in-
formal and formal. Forms of participation
include public hearings, advisory commit-
tees, surveys, focus groups, public delibera-
tion, citizen review panels, collaboration,
civic review boards, work groups, imple-
mentation studies and written comments
(Beierle 1998; Carter & Darlow 1997; Fiori-
no 1990; Nanz & Steffek 2004). All forms,
however, do not incorporate the same level
of participation. Cohen and Uphoff (1980)
argued that participation is a “descriptive
term, including numerous different activi-
ties and situations, there is much more
room for confusion about its causes and ef-
fects, and its amounts and distribution. It is
necessary to be quite specific about what is
meant in any particular situation if we are
to speak usefully about it in regard to any
particular kind of rural development effort
(p 218).”
To better understand citizen participa-
tion, Arnstein (1970) developed a typology
of citizen participation. Under this typolo-
gy, participation is divided into three cate-
gories: “Non-participation”, “Degrees of
Tokenism” and “Degrees of Citizen Power”.
Non-participation describes initiatives that
on the surface seem to be a form of public
participation. The actual purpose of this
type of participation is for planners to ex-
plain their independent decisions to the
stakeholders who had no input. The next
category is Degrees of Tokenism, which de-
scribe forms of participation in which
stakeholders are allowed to voice their in-
terests but have no power to influence the
decisions that were being made. The final
category is Degrees of Citizen Power, which
involves giving the stakeholders the ability
not only to voice their interests but also to
influence directly the decisions being made
(Arnstein 1970).
Approaches to stakeholder participa-
tion that empower stakeholders to make
decisions are regarded as more inclusive
forms of stakeholder involvement (Carmin,
Darnall, Mil-Homens 2003). For participa-
tion to be empowering, stakeholders must
be involved throughout the process and
know that their participation has the po-
tential to influence the decision (Ansari &
Phillips 2001; Carmin, Darnall, & Mil-
Homens 2003). No matter the approach, it
is important to understand that stakehold-
ers should be involved throughout the en-
tire planning and management process,
not just the initial stages (Gunn 1994).
For any type of stakeholder involve-
ment to be successful, the involvement
needs to posses the following five elements;
fairness, efficiency, knowledge, wisdom,
and stability (Nicodemus 2004; Susskind &
Cruikshank 1987). Fairness incorporates
the idea that all of the stakeholders’ inter-
ests were taken into account during the
process. Fairness is subjective to each stake-
holder, but the important thing is that all
stakeholders, or as many a possible, per-
ceive that the decision making process is
fair. Stakeholders will be more likely to sup-
port the decision if they perceive it is fair
(Susskind & Cruikshank 1987).
Even if all stakeholder groups perceive
the development process as fair, the devel-
opment process will not be successful un-
less it is also efficient. If decisions and
agreements take too long to develop or if
the total cost (financial and resource) is too
high, then the entire process will be unsuc-
cessful. If the decision is fair but takes too
long or cannot be implemented due to
costs then the decision would not be viable.
Depending on circumstances, efficiency
may be more important than fairness or
vice versa (Susskind & Cruikshank 1987).
No matter the issue, all stakeholders
should have the opportunity to have the
same level of knowledge/ understanding of
the issues (Nicodemus 2004). This may re-
quire that specific stakeholders be given
opportunities for education about the top-
ics that are to be addressed in the decision
making process. Once everyone in the
process has the same level of knowledge, de-
cisions can be made that utilizes the collec-
tive wisdom of all the stakeholders.
Wisdom is described as the use of in-
formation to predict what will happen in
the future. Information needs to be viewed
Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
objectively and decisions need to be based
on the information. Stability means can the
decision or development last and can it
with stand. Once a decision or plan is de-
veloped, it should have flexibility and have
a stipulation for renegotiation (Susskind &
Cruikshank 1987).
Proper stakeholder involvement has
multiple outcomes depending on the
process used and the stakeholders. The out-
comes of involvement include:
■ The public is informed and educated
about the topics and issues (Beierle 1998;
Simrell King & Feltey 1998).
■ Public values and opinions are incorpo-
rated in the decision making process
(Beierle 1998; Carmin, Darnall, & Mil-
Homens 2003).
■ The quality and legitimacy of the deci-
sions are improved (Beierle 1998; Fiorino
1990).
■ New ideas are generated (Carmin, Dar-
nall, & Mil-Homens 2003; Fiorino 1990;
Steelman 2001).
■ An increase in trust between all parties
(Beierle 1998; Carmin, Darnall, & Mil-
Homens 2003; La Porte & Metlay 1996;
Simrell King & Feltey 1998).
■ A reduction in conflict and lawsuits
(Beierle 1998; Carmin, Darnall, & Mil-
Homens 2003; Simrell King & Feltey
1998; Steelman 2001).
■ A cost effective process (Beierle 1998).
■ The promotion of shared responsibility
(Carmin, Darnall, Mil-Homens 2003).
Even if parties cannot resolve a particu-
lar issue, the process should be able to help
them understand the goals and perspectives
of others by fostering communication and
build relationships (Beierle & Konisky 2000).
5 Sustainable development and
tourism
In Our Common Future sustainable devel-
opment was defined by the WCED as “de-
velopment that meets the needs of the pre-
sent without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own
needs” (p 43). The key to WCED’s defini-
tion of sustainable development is that the
present use of resources does not adversely
impact the potential use of resources in the
future. Two stakeholder groups clearly
identified in the WCED’s definition of sus-
tainable tourism are the present users and
the future users of a resource.
Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Seite 9
E. T. Byrd: Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and Their Roles
Murphy (1998) identified 14 major
components of sustainable development
based on his interpretation of Our Common
Future. A review of these components yields
three general concepts that serve as the basis
of sustainable development. These include
environmental concepts, social concepts,
and economic concepts. From these three
concepts one general goal for sustainable
development can be developed.
The general goal of sustainable devel-
opment is to meet the basic needs of society
and extend the opportunity for a higher
quality of life (WCED 1987). To achieve this
goal, there must be a social structure that
facilitates the resolution of conflicts. Next,
the economic system must be able to pro-
duce a continuous source of surplus and a
source of technical knowledge. All the
while, the environment must be protected.
Sustainable development is not a static
process but must continuously include a
search for new answers. Sustainable devel-
opment must be flexible and adaptable.
In an effort to incorporate sustainable
concepts into tourism development, many
authors have attempted to define or de-
scribe sustainable tourism development
(Gunn 1994; Hardy & Beeton 2001; Ioan-
nides 1995; Robson & Robson 1996; WTO
1998), but there is no universally accepted
definition. The definition applied most of-
ten by tourism planners and in the tourism
research literature was developed by the
World Tourism Organization (WTO). The
definition is as follows:
Sustainable tourism development meets the needs
of the present tourists and host regions while pro-
tecting and enhancing opportunities for the future.
It is envisaged as leading to management of all re-
sources in such a way that economic, social, and aes-
thetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cul-
tural integrity, essential ecology processes, biological
diversity, and life support systems (p 21, 1998).
In the WTO’s definition of sustainable
tourism development identifies two stake-
holder groups: the present tourist and the
host community.
Combining the two stakeholder groups
from the WTO’s definition with the two
identified in the WCED’s definition of sus-
tainability, four distinct stakeholder groups
can be identified: the present tourist, the
present host community, the future tourist
and the future host community.
An increasing numbers of researchers
and professionals are currently advocating
the inclusion of stakeholders in the plan-
ning process (Hardy & Beeton 2001; Gunn
1994; Ioannides 1995). Two distinct areas of
thinking have emerged in the tourism liter-
ature with regards to stakeholder theory.
The first idea is closely related to the classi-
cal idea of stakeholder management. The or-
ganization considers the interest of the
stakeholders and develops policies and prac-
tices based on the stakeholders’ power and
influence. Those with more power would be
given more consideration than those with
less (De Lopez 2001; Hunt & Haider 2001).
The second idea of stakeholder theory
that has emerged over the past few years in-
cludes the concept of collaborative think-
ing (Jamal & Getz 1995; Yuksel, Bramwell &
Yuksel 1999). This idea is based on the nor-
mative approach to stakeholder theory. It
implies that consideration should be given
to each stakeholder group without one be-
ing given priority over others (Sautter &
Leisen 1999). Jamal and Getz (1995) de-
scribed collaboration in tourism develop-
ment as “community based tourism plan-
ning of an inter-organizational, communi-
ty tourism domain to resolve planning
problems of the domain and /or to manage
issues related to the planning and develop-
ment of the domain” (p 188). Collabora-
tion is an educational and enabling process
whereby stakeholders assume responsibili-
ty for the development of tourism within
their community. The goal of collaboration
is to balance the power between all stake-
holder groups (Tosun 2000).
In particular, stakeholder identifica-
tion and involvement is the main step to-
wards achieving community partnerships
and collaboration within tourism (Hardy &
Beeton 2001). Yuksel, Bramwell & Yuksel
(1999) state that while collaborative plan-
ning may be time consuming and difficult,
it can be justified because potentially it can
“avoid the costs of resolving conflicts in the
long term, it is more politically legitimate,
and it can build on the store of knowledge
and capacities of the stakeholders” (p 315).
6 Cases of stakeholder to partici-
pation in sustainable tourism
development
As previously mentioned, there are multi-
ple forms in which stakeholder participa-
tion can occur both informally and formal-
ly. For example, in Selma, NC the town
manager and planners wanted to revitalize
the downtown district through tourism,
namely antique shopping and entertain-
9
Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
Refereed Section
ment. To begin the process, the town man-
ager prepared an initial proposal and gave
it to as many business owners, residents, lo-
cal officials, and potential business owners
as possible. Through this informal process,
he received various forms of feed back rang-
ing from total support to skepticism. The
manager took the feed back obtained from
the draft proposal and prepared a revised
version of the proposal. The town then held
a formal meeting where all stakeholders
could voice their ideas and opinions about
the idea. Due in part to the initial proposal
being reviewed by so many different stake-
holders there was overwhelming support
for the revised proposal. The downtown are
was developed according to the proposal
and was a success. To keep stakeholders in-
volved in the process, the town manager
talked with stakeholders informally about
the development constantly to get their
feedback. Also, an advisory board was set
up to work with the town and the local des-
tination marketing organization to contin-
ually develop and manage the area (Rad-
ford 2003, personal communication).
Litvin (2005), in his study of streetscape
improvements to King Street, Charleston,
SC, discussed how stakeholders could be in-
volved through developing a “Design
Charette” or work group and surveying local
merchants that would be impacted by the
development. The work group consisted of
downtown merchants, representatives from
the merchants association, city planners,
and the city architects. Litvin (2005) citing
Crotts and McNitt (1998) stated that this
work group “allowed the various parties to
better understand each other’s goals and fi-
nancial limitations and led to a general
sketch of the project (p 423).” Additionally,
a survey was sent to all the merchants in the
area to gage their willingness to pay for the
project. Through both of these forms of
stakeholder participation a plan was devel-
oped that was considered well rounded and
realistic (Litvin 2005).
Another method of stakeholder partici-
pation that has been used by multiple
groups (Aas, Ladkin, & Fletcher 2005;
Bramwell & Sharman 1999)is the idea of col-
laboration. Aas, Ladkin, and Fletcher (2005)
discussed a case where a community was de-
veloping heritage tourism in Luang
Probang, Laos. To implement and manage
the project, a collaborative working group
was developed. The work group included
government officials and nongovernmental
organizations. Bramwell and Sharman
10
Seite 10
(1999) describe stakeholder participation in
developing a tourism plan at Hope Valley in
Britain’s Peak District National Park. In this
case, a work group consisted of members
representing the host community’s interests,
environmental interests, recreational inter-
ests, tourism interests, local government in-
terests, as well as other interests was estab-
lished (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999). These
two cases demonstrate that even in the same
form of stakeholder participation, i.e. collab-
oration, there are different ways to apply the
ideas of stakeholder inclusion. These differ-
ences are based on the individual communi-
ties and stakeholders. In other words, when
developing the method of stakeholder inclu-
sion planners must take into account the
destination and its stakeholders.
Simmons (1994) investigated three dif-
ferent forms of stakeholder participation
in Huron County, Ontario, Canada. Sim-
mons used stakeholder interviews, surveys
and focus groups. He found that each of
the different forms of stakeholder involve-
ment had it benefits and problems (Sim-
mons 1994). Based on these findings, it can
be concluded that the form as well as the ac-
tual participants is dependent on the spe-
cific community and stakeholders within
that community. What is consistent in all
the examples is the fact that the stakehold-
ers were included in the tourism planning
process in some form and that there were
substantial benefits from this involvement.
7 Discussion
So who should be involved in the sustain-
able tourism development process? Based
on the definitions that are used for sustain-
ability and sustainable tourism develop-
ment four distinct groups are identified; the
present visitors, future visitors, present host
community, and future host community.
The host community can be further divided
into residents, business owners, and govern-
ment officials. The management view of the
stakeholder theory indicates that all stake-
holder groups should be involved in the en-
tire tourism development process. While all
stakeholders do not need to be involved
equally in the decision making process, it
does require that as many as possible are
identified and their interests heard (Don-
aldson & Preston 1995). Failure to identify
the interest of even a single primary stake-
holder group may result in the failure of the
entire process (Clarkson 1995).
The present visitors can be described as
any individuals or groups that are current
tourists in a community. Through their vis-
it to the host community, they will infuse
the local economy with economic re-
sources. The present visitors consume
many of the services that the tourism in-
dustry offers, (e.g. hotels, restaurants, etc),
and resources in the community, (e.g. wa-
ter, transportation, cultural resources, etc).
They may also use other services that are
not commonly associated with tourism,
(e.g. grocery stores, laundry cleaners, etc).
The interests of the present visitor
stakeholder will involve the quality of the
experience they have while in the commu-
nity. Any change to the community may
impact their experience positively or nega-
tively. Positive changes can come in the
form of better infrastructure, more knowl-
edgeable staff, higher quality services, and
so forth. Negative changes could include
loss of historic buildings, crowding, host
community resentment, and so forth.
These changes will influence the amount of
money they spend in the area and if they
will come back to visit.
The future visitors are those individu-
als or groups that will, in the future, visit
the area. Similar to the present visitors, the
future visitors will consume many of the re-
sources (natural, built, and social) in a com-
munity. These resources include those that
are currently present in the community and
resources that will be available in the fu-
ture. Future resources may include future
infrastructure improvements, hotels, and
attractions. Planners must be aware of the
future visitors’ consumption of these re-
sources when the planning process beings.
The future visitors’ main interests in-
volve their perceived experiences in the
community. The future visitors will learn
about the community through marketing,
media, and the present visitors. Changes
made in the community will influence the
likelihood, either positively or negativity, of
the future visitors visiting, the duration of
their stay, and the activities that they may
want to participate. If changes are severe
enough the individual may choose not visit
the community.
The present host community represent
all groups that currently make up the host
community; residents, business owners,
and government officials. The host com-
munity uses most of the resources in the
community and is present in the commu-
nity on a long term basis. Changes to the
Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
community, therefore, will impact them
more than the other three groups.
There is not a definable single generic
interest for the host community. The inter-
ests will be individual to each community
and each subgroup of the community.
Changes to the community can either assist
in keeping an individual in a community or
increase their chance to leave the communi-
ty. Current tourism and tourism develop-
ment in the community will also influence
their support for future endeavors and their
interactions with visitors. The support and
interactions will in turn influence the over-
all success of the tourism development.
The future host community can be de-
scribed as those individuals and groups that
will become residents, business owners, or
governmental officials in the future. This
stakeholder group includes individuals that
either move into the community or are born
into the community. These individuals are
the future consumers of the future re-
sources in the community. Similar to the re-
sources described in relation to the future
visitors, these resources can include infra-
structure improvements and new attrac-
tions as well as schools and residential areas.
Changes in the community will influ-
ence the area that the individuals will reside;
the type of services that they will need, want
or believe they are entitled to; and the de-
mographic characteristics of the individual.
The changes that take place in a community
may increase the chance that the individuals
in the future host community will move to
the area or may discourage their move to the
area. The individuals that are born in the
area will make their decision about staying
in the community or moving away based on
many of the changes that occur to the re-
source availability in the community.
How stakeholders should be included
in the sustainable development process can
be found in the policy development view of
stakeholder theory. The type and extent of
stakeholder involvement will greatly de-
pend on time, available resources, and lead-
ership. There are occasions when one or
more of these are not available. When one
or more are not available, the level of stake-
holder involvement will be lessened. Meth-
ods to include stakeholders under these
conditions can include public hearings, ad-
visory committees, surveys, focus groups,
and written comments (Beierle 1998;
Carter & Darlow 1997; Fiorino 1990).
If time, resources and leadership are
available, the stakeholders then need to be
Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Seite 11
E. T. Byrd: Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and Their Roles
empowered to make decisions throughout
the process and understand that that their
participation has the potential to influence
the decision. This type of involvement must
begin with educating all stakeholders
about the issues and interests that are in-
volved in the tourism development. Collab-
oration, partnerships, and collaborative
learning are three methods that allow for
this type of involvement of all stakeholders.
How do tourism professionals include
stakeholders in the decision making
process? The first step, as discussed, is to
identify who the stakeholders are, this study
is an initial attempt in accomplishing this.
Once stakeholders have been identified, the
question is how should the stakeholder be
included in the decision making process.
There are many methods that have been de-
scribed in general but what of the specific
group. The group discussed in this paper
that may be the easiest to bring to the table
is the current residents. The tourism litera-
ture and tourism professional give multiple
examples of how to include the current resi-
dents from collaboration, public meetings,
tourism advisory boards, and surveys. Inclu-
sion of this group can be formal or informal.
Whichever the form used to include the cur-
rent residents, it is important that the peo-
ple involved are representative of the entire
local resident population, even though their
level of participation can be different.
Future residents may be more difficult
to include in the decision making process in
a formal manner. Future residents cannot
physically be brought into a public meeting
or be a part of a collaborative work group. So
how can their interests be included in the de-
cision making process. One method would
be monitoring community demographic
trends so that tourism planners can predict
what the future resident population will re-
semble. Monitoring community demo-
graphic trends allows planners to make in-
formed decisions about what the needs of
the future residents will be. Clearly, tourism
planners need to have a vision of the future
and develop long-term plans in conjunction
with the entire community including; eco-
nomic development, education, infrastruc-
ture, and emergency management.
To include current visitors in the
tourism planning process, as with each
group, they must be identified and contact-
ed. Current visitors can be included in the
process either formally or informally. In ei-
ther case, the current visitor will only be a
part of the process for a short period of time.
It is not logical to think that a visitor can
come to monthly meeting of a work group
or come for a public hearing. The most fea-
sible forms of inclusion for this group of
stakeholders are focus groups, surveys (with
questions about what would improve the
destination), and intercepting visitors while
they are at the destination. No matter the
form of inclusion, tourism planners must
make sure that this is not a one time occur-
rence. Current visitors must be included as
part of an on-going process. A yearly survey
of current visitors about the destination
would be an example of an ongoing process.
In addition to incorporating the cur-
rent visitors’ interests into the sustainable
tourism development process, planners
need to identify other groups that may be-
come future visitors. Future visitors may be
the most difficult group to include because
of the problem associated with identifying
this group. Planners must monitor and un-
derstand the demographics and prefer-
ences of the current visitors in an attempt
to predict who may be the future visitor.
Tourism planners need to be aware of po-
tential new markets and, before trying to
attract them, know their interests and if the
area can meet the visitors’ interests. An ex-
ample of a tool that can help tourism plan-
ners in North Carolina is the Travel Track-
er by the North Carolina Division of
Tourism, Film, and Sports Development
www.nccommerce.com/tourism/Travel-
Tracker/. The Travel Tracker is a tool that
monitors visitors and tourism statistics
monthly for North Carolina. Using this in-
strument, planners can make predictions
on future visitors’ interests.
The first step to sustainable tourism
development in a community is the identi-
fication of stakeholders. Once the stake-
holders are identified, they can be included
in the tourism development process. Only
then will the tourism development have its
best chance to be truly sustainable. As
Donaldson and Preston (1995) indicated,
all stakeholders do not need to be involved
equally in the decision making process, but
it does require that all interests are identi-
fied and understood.
8 Conclusions
This paper has shown that community
planners and destination management or-
ganizations need to be concerned with all
stakeholders in the community. Tradition-
11
Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
Refereed Section
ally, the concern is with the visitor, inform-
ing them of the attractions and facilities in
the community in hopes they will travel to
the region. Based on the ideas of sustain-
ability, and stakeholder theory there is a
need for these organizations to communi-
cate with the local community as well as the
visitor. Educating and informing the local
community will strengthen the tourism in-
dustry. It will also allow for a stronger un-
derstanding of the tourism impacts that
the community perceives and the actual im-
pacts that result from tourism.
Many professionals have discussed
stakeholder inclusion in the tourism devel-
opment process, but it has not been fully re-
alized. There is a perception in the tourism
field that stakeholder involvement is diffi-
cult or impossible to accomplish. Some pro-
fessionals would argue that due to limited
resources, time and money, stakeholder in-
volvement cannot be done by destination
management organizations (DMO) and
other planning groups. The job of these
groups is tourism marketing and product
development. From their perspective,
tourism marketing and product develop-
ment does not include stakeholder involve-
ment. This perspective does not lead to sus-
tainable development. Without stakeholder
involvement, the term sustainable develop-
ment would just be a marketing slogan or, at
best, a topic for theoretical debate. The lim-
ited resource argument would support the
idea that sustainable development is a
utopian concept that will never be realized.
The DMO or other tourism planners
have focused on the tangible parts of devel-
oping the product or destination such as
the number of rooms, the buildings, and
the natural resources. This focus neglects
the other aspect of the product, the intan-
gible part. The author proposes that the in-
tangible part of the tourism product is the
over all experience for all stakeholders, not
just the visitors. This is where the social
component of tourism and, more notably,
sustainable tourism is most prevalent. For
DMOs to develop the product, they must
incorporate both the tangible and intangi-
ble aspects of tourism for all stakeholders.
To develop sustainable tourism, DMOs
must begin to develop the whole product
and include the interests of all stakehold-
ers. Including the interests of stakeholders
will help to reduce conflict. Including the
interests of the stakeholders cannot keep
conflict between stakeholders from occur-
ring, but it can provide the parties a mech-
12
Seite 12
anism to discuss their disagreements in a
constructive manner. Stakeholders need to
be made aware of the other interests in the
community so that they can understand
the reasoning behind tourism policies and
developments.
There are occasions and circumstances
in the tourism planning process when
stakeholders cannot be contacted due to
time constraints. Knowing beforehand the
interests in the community and being able
to predict the way stakeholders will view a
new tourism policy will be valuable. When
time constraints limit stakeholder involve-
ment, being able to predict an individual’s
or group’s level of support will allow for
better planning and crises management.
Including stakeholders in the tourism
development process calls for a new ap-
proach. Traditionally, tourism professional
training has centered on resource manage-
ment, marketing, and planning. Based on
this study and many others reviewed in the
literature, the training needs to be expand-
ed. Tourism professionals must begin to
learn how to incorporate the interests of
multiple stakeholder groups in their plans.
Tourism professionals must begin to learn
to inventory not only the physical resources
but also all stakeholders and their interests.
As indicated in this paper and through-
out the literature, stakeholder involvement
must be included in any successful sustain-
able tourism development plan. If stake-
holder involvement is to be included, mech-
anisms are needed to identify and measure
participation which brings up the idea of
indicators. Great effort has been made to
develop indicators for sustainable tourism
development (Choi & Sirakaya 2006). Sev-
eral indicators can be used for stakeholder
participation in a community. Within each
of these indicators sub-indicators can be
developed for specific communities. The
indicators can included
■ Stakeholder knowledge (Byrd & Carde-
nas 2006, Choi & Sirakaya 2006, Sim-
mons 1994).
■ Perceived impacts of tourism develop-
ment (Byrd & Gustke 2005)
■ Support for tourism development (Byrd
& Gustke 2005; Fleischer & Felsenstein
2000; Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez 2002)
■ Resident Population Demographics
■ Attendance Numbers at Attractions
■ Occupancy Rates
■ Host community attitudes toward tourism
development (Choi & Sirakaya 2006; Mar-
tin 1995)
■ Resident involvement in tourism devel-
opment (Choi & Sirakaya 2006)
■ Local resident participation in planning
(Choi & Sirakaya 2006)
■ Avaliabilty of resident advisory board
(Choi & Sirakaya 2006)
This paper focused on who should be
involved and how they should be involved
in sustainable tourism development. More
research needs to be done on methods and
techniques to identify stakeholders. Tradi-
tionally, stakeholders have been segmented
by different factors. Research needs to in-
vestigate how stakeholders are segmented
and why they are segmented in such a fash-
ion. Also, future research needs to explore
new techniques and methods to identify
stakeholder groups, (eg. decision trees,
stakeholder mapping, cluster analysis, etc)
Future studies on stakeholder involve-
ment should focus on analyzing the differ-
ent forms and methods that are used to in-
clude the stakeholders. More specifically,
what characteristics of a community would
lead to success with one form of participa-
tion over other forms of participation?
There is also a need to develop methods
and tools to identify the stakeholders’ level
of knowledge about sustainable tourism
development. Then methods and strategies
need to be developed to enhance the com-
munities knowledge base in relation to sus-
tainable tourism development so that
stakeholders can make informed decisions
about the development that takes place in
there are.
With these methods and forms, plan-
ners and developers of tourism can incor-
porate stakeholder involvement into their
planning and, in turn, develop a more sus-
tainable tourism product for all stakehold-
ers. The issue becomes how do we identify
the stakeholders and how do we include the
future visitor and the future host commu-
nity, because at any given time they may not
physically exist. Both these issues should be
further researched so that all stakeholder
groups can be included in the sustainable
tourism development process.
Finally, in every community, there are
those individuals who may not want to be
involved. How can their interests be includ-
ed in the stakeholder process? In general,
when decisions are made for tourism devel-
opment the question should be asked,
“How will this impact our stakeholders and
are we prepared for that.”
Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Tourism Review 2/07 07.09.2007 13:33 Uhr
References
- Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stake-
holder collaboration and heritage management.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1), 28-48.
- Andriotis, K. & Vaughan, R.D. (2003). Urban resi-
dents’ attitudes toward tourism development:
The case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42,
172-185.
- Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen partici-
pation. Journal of the American Institute of Plan-
ners, 35 (4), 216-224.
- Ansari, W.E. & Phillips, C.J. (2001). Interprofes-
sional collaboration: A stakeholder approach to
evaluation of voluntary participation in commu-
nity partnerships. Journal of Interprofessional
Care, 15(4), 351-368.
- Beierle, T.C. (1998). Public participation in envi-
ronmental decisions: An evaluation framework
using social goals. Washington DC: Resources for
the Future.
- Beierle, T.C. & Konisky, D.M. (2000). Values, con-
flict, and trust in participatory environmental
planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-
ment, 19 (4), 587-602.
- Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration
in local tourism policymaking. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26 (2), 392-415.
- Brebbia, C. A. (Eds), Sustainable tourism: The sus-
tainable world. (pp. 97-108). WIT Press: London.
- Briassoulis, H. (2002). Sustainable tourism and
the question of the commons. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29 (4), 1065-1085.
- Byrd, E. T. & Cardenas, D. A. (2006, March). Ele-
ments of stakeholder support for tourism in rural
communities: The case of eastern North Carolina.
Southeastern Travel and Tourism Research Asso-
ciation Research Symposium, Sarasota, FL.
- Byrd, E. T. & Gustke, L. D. (2004). Identifying
tourism stakeholder groups based on support for
sustainable tourism development and participa-
tion in tourism activities. In Pineda, F. D.
- Carmin, J., Darnall, N. & Mil-Homens, J. (2003).
Stakeholder involvement in the design of U.S. vol-
untary environmental programs: Does sponsor-
ship matter? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 527-
543.
- Carter, N. & Darlow, A. (1997). Local Agenda 21
and developers: Are we better equipped to build a
consensus in the 1990s? Planning Practice & Re-
search, 12(1), 45-57.
- Choi, H.C. & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability
indicators for managing community tourism.
Tourism Management, 27, 1274-1289.
- Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder frame-
work for analyzing and evaluation corporate so-
cial performance. The Academy of Management
Review, 20(1), 92-117.
- Cohen, J.M. & Uphoff, N.T. (1980). Participation’s
place in rural development: Seeking clarity
through specificity. World Development, 8, 213-
235.
- Crosby, N., Kelly, J. & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens
panels: A new approach to citizen participation.
Public Management Forum, 46, 170-178.
- Curry, N. (2001). Community participation and
rural policy: Representativeness in the develop-
ment of Millennium Greens. Journal of Environ-
mental Planning and Management, 44(4), 561-
576.
- De Lopez, T.T. (2001). Stakeholder management
for conservation projects: A case study of Ream
National Park, Cambodia. Environmental Man-
agement, 28(1), 47-60.
- Donaldson, T. & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stake-
holder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evi-
dence, and implications. The Academy of Man-
agement Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Tourism Review, Vol 62, No 2/2007
Seite 13
E. T. Byrd: Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and Their Roles
- Fiorino, D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and en- development: Concepts and issues. Sharpley, R. &
vironmental risk: A survey of institutional mecha- Telfer, D.J. (eds). Cleveland: Channel View Publi-
nisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, cations. 231-262.
15(2), 226-243. - Steelman, T.A. (2001). Elite and participatory pol-
- Fleischer, A. & Felsenstein, D. (2000). Support for icymaking: Finding balance in a case of national
rural tourism: Does it make a difference? Annals forest planning. Policy Studies Journal, 29(1), 71-
of Tourism research, 27 (4), 1007-1024. 89.
- Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A - Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. 1987. Breaking the
stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving
- Gunn, C.A. (1994). Tourism planning: Basic con- Public Disputes. Basic Books
cepts cases (3rd ed). Washington, D.C.: Taylor and - Tosun, C. (200). Challenges of sustainable
Francis. tourism development in the developing world:
- Hardy, A.L. & Beeton, R.J.S. (2001). Sustainable The case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22 (3),
tourism or maintainable tourism: Managing re- 289-304.
sources for more than average outcomes. Journal - World Commission on Environment and Devel-
of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 168-192. opment. (1987). Our common future, Oxford:
- Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a Oxford University Press.
stakeholder society. Town Planning Review, 69, 1- - World Tourism Organization. (1998). Guide for
21. local authorities on developing sustainable
- Hunt, L & Haider, W. (2001). Fair and effective de- tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
cision making in forest management planning. - Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B.& Yuksel, A. (1999). Stake-
Society of Natural Resources, 14, 873-887. holder interviews and tourism planning at Pa-
- Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrat- mukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20, 351-
ed and Sustainable Development Approach, New 360.
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
- Ioannides, D. (1995). A flawed implementation of
sustainable tourism; the experience of Akamas,
Cyprus. Tourism Management 16(8), 583-592.
- Jamal, T.B. & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theo-
ry and community tourism planning. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22 (1), 186-204.
- Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder the-
ory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. The
Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.
- Litvin, S.W. (2005). Streetscape improvements in
an historic tourist city a second visit to King
Street, Charleston, South Carolina. Tourism
Management, 26, 421-429.
- McCool, S.F. 1995. Linking tourism, the environ-
ment and concepts of sustainability: setting the
stage. In McCool, S.F., Watson, A.E. comps, 1995.
Linking tourism the environment and sustain-
ability - topical volume of compiled papers from a
special session of the annual meeting of the Na-
tional Recreation and Park Association. 3-7.
- Martin, S.R. (1995). Montanans’ attitudes and be-
havioral intentions toward tourism: Implications
for sustainability. In McCool, S.F., Watson, A.E.
comps, 1995. Linking tourism the environment
and sustainability - topical volume of compiled
papers from a special session of the annual meet-
ing of the National Recreation and Park Associa-
tion. 69-76.
- Nanz, P. & Steffek, J. (2004). Global governance,
participation and the public sphere. Government
and Opposition, 39 (2), 314-335.
- Nicodemus, D.M. (2004). Mobilizing informa-
tion: Local news and the formation of a viable po-
litical community. Political Communication,
21(2), 161-176.
- Robson, J. & Robson, I. (1996). From shareholders
to stakeholders: critical issues for tourism mar-
keters. Tourism Management, 17 (7), 583-540.
- Sautter, E.T. & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stake-
holders: A tourism planning model. Annuals of
Tourism Research, 26 (2), 312-328.
- Simmons, D.G. (1994). Community participation
in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15
(2), 98-108.
- Simrell King, C., Feltey, K.M. (1998). The question
of participation: Toward authentic public partici-
pation in public administration. Public Adminis-
tration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
- Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Under-
standing residents’ support for tourism develop-
ment in the central region of Ghana. Journal of
Travel Research, 41, 57-67.
- Southgate, C. & Sharpley, R. (2002). Tourism, de-
velopment and the environment. In Tourism and
13