Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp

Current issue in tourism

Conceptualising networks in sustainable tourism development T

a,⁎ a a a,b
Thi Quynh Trang Nguyen , Tamara Young , Patricia Johnson , Stephen Wearing
a
Newcastle Business School, Faculty of Business and Law, The University of Newcastle, 409 Hunter Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300, Australia
b
Honorary Management Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper contributes to the sustainable tourism research agenda concerning the implementation of UN
Stakeholder theory Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at a destination level. This paper develops a conceptual framework
Actor-network theory integrating three theories: stakeholder theory, social network analysis (SNA), and actor-network theory (ANT).
Social network analysis Integration reveals a blended approach to enable a reassessment of stakeholder roles to further explore the
Sustainable tourism development
nature, dynamics and operations of tourism networks as they work to achieve SDGs. Tourismscapes, as a model,
Tourismscapes
is invoked to scaffold data and to provide insight into the nuances of destination networks. This research
SDG17
Tourism networks evaluates this concept and its potential for rethinking tourism research and inspiring a new wave of study. Firmly
planted in critical tourism studies, this paper conceptualises tourism stakeholder interactions, specifically those
networks pursuing common goals at a destination level, such as SDG 17 that aims to strengthen means of
implementation through partnerships.

1. Introduction research the processes of operationalising Goal 17, a key SDG which
referring to the importance of networking interactions between part-
In 2015, the United Nations launched seventeen Sustainable ners to implement SDGs.
Development Goals (SDGs) providing a new system of indicators for The stakeholder approach is fundamental to tourism research, yet
sustainable development for application by all industry sectors in all researchers have struggled to explain the often complex relationship
nations (UN, 2015). The tourism industry is directly and indirectly in- between stakeholders (Beritelli, 2011; Merinero-Rodríguez & Pulido-
cluded and materially contributes to their implementation (UNWTO, Fernández, 2016). According to a number of scholars, network analysis
2016). Sustainability principles and indicators have long been central to provides one approach to understanding stakeholder interactions and
a tourism research agenda, with theoretical issues relating to sustain- relationships in tourism destination management, governance, and
able development a key focus (Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller, 2017; development (for example, Baggio, Scott, & Cooper, 2010; Del Chiappa
Ruhanen, Weiler, Moyle, & McLennan, 2015). Tourism has significant & Baggio, 2015; Dredge, 2006; Hristov, Minocha, & Ramkissoon, 2018;
effects on economies, environments, societies and cultures around the Liu, Huang, & Fu, 2017; Presenza & Cipollina, 2010; Tinsley & Lynch,
globe (Pan et al., 2018; Wearing, Stevenson, & Young, 2010), and can 2001). These studies evidence that networking brings together a range
“be a factor for environmental preservation, promotion and cultural of stakeholders and provides avenues to facilitate communication, in-
appreciation and understanding among peoples” (UNWTO, 2016, p.11). formation sharing, and knowledge transfer between them. Therefore,
Accordingly, the UNWTO (2016) indicated a need to implement a fra- networks promote cooperative relationships for productive activity in
mework to achieve these goals. Such a framework could assist under- tourism destinations (Merinero-Rodríguez & Pulido-Fernández, 2016;
standings of the nuanced relationships between destination stake- Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008). As cooperation is a “condition for
holders (UNWTO, 2016). In critiquing theoretical approaches used in sustainable tourism planning and development” (Beritelli, 2011, p.
tourism research to further knowledge about destinations and stake- 607), network interactions can benefit the realisation of SDGs in
holders within them, this conceptual paper seeks to address Lane's tourism. However, research on tourism networks and how they operate
(2018, p. 163) question “will sustainable tourism research help sus- at destinations in developing tourism sustainably has received limited
tainable tourism towards real life implementation?”. The discussion attention (Albrecht, 2013), possibly due to “the multiplicity and het-
that follows concerns the design of a methodological approach to erogeneity of tourism stakeholders” (Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tnguyen8@uon.edu.au (T.Q.T. Nguyen), Tamara.Young@newcastle.edu.au (T. Young), Patricia.Johnson@newcastle.edu.au (P. Johnson),
stephen.wearing@uts.edu.au (S. Wearing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100575
Received 16 January 2019; Received in revised form 13 June 2019; Accepted 10 September 2019
2211-9736/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

p. 343). The theories presented in this paper – stakeholder theory, so- 1998, p. 21).
cial network analysis (SNA), and actor-network theory (ANT) – are Whilst sustainable development is an overarching goal for most
reviewed here to provide the basis for a framework to re-conceptualise nations engaging tourism as a tool for development (Ellis & Sheridan,
stakeholder theories in tourism research. 2014), many have argued that implementing sustainability principles is
The study of networks in tourism research is predominantly math- a difficult task (Pan et al., 2018; Tosun, 2001; Waligo et al., 2013). For
ematically informed quantitative frameworks of social network analysis example, maintaining a balance between resource exploitation for de-
or network analysis (Abbruzzo, Brida, & Scuderi, 2014; Baggio et al., velopment and environmental and sociocultural protection in tourism is
2010; Benckendorff & Zehrer, 2013; Dredge, 2006; Friedrichs Grangsjo, challenging (Creaco & Querini, 2003), particularly in the context of
2003; Hristov et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2017; Racherla & Hu, 2010; Scott developing countries where economic development is a prioritized
et al., 2008; Tinsley & Lynch, 2001). In this paper, we use the term target (Tosun, 2001). Indeed, some have argued that the achievement
social network analysis (SNA) in reference to these network theories in of triple bottom line sustainability is near impossible, and trade-offs
social science (Scott et al., 2008). SNA provides indices of connections often occur whereby particular pillars of sustainability (for example,
between stakeholders, enables the identification of actor positions in economic sustainability) are prioritized over environmental or socio-
social structures and linkages between them, and explains information cultural indicators (Lundie, Dwyer, & Forsyth, 2007).
flows and knowledge exchange within these actors. Scholars have found Good destination governance is, therefore, recognised as key to
the application of SNA in tourism research to have limitations. For achieving sustainability goals (Bramwell, 2011; Hall, 2011). Destina-
example, these studies have been criticised for being unable to explain tion governance refers to the process of tourism planning, policy- and
the dynamics of a network or explore the processes of network forma- decision-making, through stakeholder interaction and participation in
tion (Albrecht, 2013; Dredge & Pforr, 2008). collective actions, and is aimed to improve stakeholder and destination
Tourism network research focuses primarily on human actors in a performance (Beritelli, Bieger, & Laesser, 2007; Padurean, 2010;
network and tends to ignore the roles and influences of non-human Pechlaner, Volgger, & Herntrei, 2012). Stakeholder participation is
elements. Thus, we propose a conceptual framework to examine net- viewed by many researchers as central to sustainable development
work interactions of humans and non-humans at a tourism destination, (Byrd, 2007; Ioannides, 1995; Timur & Getz, 2008; Waligo, Clarke, &
particularly in the context of furthering shared ambitions (in this case, Hawkins, 2015). However, research regarding tourism stakeholder in-
to promote the implementation of SDGs). This research is inspired by volvement in sustainable development remains limited (Mistilis,
the ‘critical turn’ as a perspective on tourism that “can offer some Buhalis, & Gretzel, 2014). This paper addresses this gap by presenting a
seemingly exciting as well as innovative and progressive directions” conceptual framework to investigate the process of stakeholder in-
(Bramwell and Lane (2014, p. 6) to address issues related to sustainable volvement and interaction implemented through networking, and how
development. In doing so, this paper proposes the integration of sta- it can result in a chain of actions towards achieving specific SDGs.
keholder theory and network theories to assist researchers and practi-
tioners to identify and recognise the significance of both human and 2.1. Stakeholders and their involvement in sustainable development
non-human actors, as well as explain the process of transferring these
actors into a network and exploring interactions between them. This re- Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as “any group or individual
conceptualised approach can provide more nuanced insights into the who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisations
roles and influences of all destination actors in achieving the SDGs. objectives”. Similarly, Baggio and Cooper (2010, p. 1759) view stake-
Specifically, the concept of ‘tourismscapes’ developed by Van der Duim holders as “any person, group or institution that has an interest in a
(2005) from actor-network theory is positioned as a useful model to development activity, project or program”. In tourism, stakeholders are
scaffold data and apply these findings in the field. The conceptual viewed as individuals, groups, and organisations such as tourists,
framework presented is a response to calls to involve host communities tourism businesses, and local communities (Baggio et al., 2010; Milne,
in tourism decision-making, and increasing participatory and bottom- 1998; Murphy & Murphy, 2004). Leiper (2004) views tourism stake-
up power for marginal and less advantaged stakeholders in tourism holders as a system of individuals and organisations involved in tourism
development (Khazaei, Elliot, & Joppe, 2015; Nguyen, Young, & activities within the generating region, the transit region, and the
Johnson, 2019; Wearing, Wearing, & McDonald, 2010). destination region. Applying these definitions, tourism stakeholders are
The discussion that follows is divided into two sections. The first those individuals and groups who can affect, or are affected by, the
provides a review of literature on tourism stakeholders and network achievement of tourism development objectives.
research, including individual applications of stakeholder theory, SNA, The stakeholder approach is a significant area of tourism research
and ANT and the paired integrations of these theories. This section ends (Merinero-Rodríguez & Pulido-Fernández, 2016), and has been divided
with a conceptual framework that integrates all three theories as a into three broad streams: stakeholder perspectives, stakeholder re-
methodological approach to apply in a tourism context working to- lationships, and stakeholder participation. First, stakeholder – particu-
wards the implementation of SDGs. The discussion and conclusion larly resident – perspectives and attitudes towards tourism development
section that follows discuss the implications of this framework for have been extensively studied (Anastasiadou, 2008; Ap, 1992; Burrai,
tourism research and practice, and recommends possible future re- Font, & Cochrane, 2015; Chen, 2015; Diedrich & García-Buades, 2009;
search approaches for each integration. Dincă, Surugiu, Surugiu, & Frenţ, 2014; Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004;
Imran, Alam, & Beaumont, 2014; Tosun, 2002; Trawoger, 2014; Zehrer
2. Literature review & Hallmann, 2015). Although destination stakeholders may hold posi-
tive attitudes to tourism development, their behaviours can be sup-
According to Sharpley (2000), definitions of sustainable tourism portive or unsupportive depending on the influences of other stake-
have been approached from two angles: sustainable tourism as an holders.
economic activity, and sustainable tourism as an element of wider Second, research concerned with stakeholder relationships within
sustainable development. In this paper, following Bramwell (2015, organisations and destinations addresses the underpinning interactions,
p.205), sustainable tourism is understood as “regularly linked with the such as cooperation (Beritelli, 2011; Czernek, 2013; Fyall, Garrod, &
preservation of ecosystems, the promotion of human welfare, inter- and Wang, 2012), conflict (Kuvan & Akan, 2012; Yang, Ryan, & Zhang,
intra-generational equity, and public participation in decision-making”. 2013), competition and coopetition (Damayanti, Scott, & Ruhanen,
This definition argues for all forms of tourism to be developed sus- 2017; Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003; Guo, Zheng, Ling, & Yang, 2014;
tainably to meet “the needs of the present tourists and host regions Kylanen & Mariani, 2014). While others have focused on stakeholder
while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future” (UNWTO, participation in tourism policy making and planning (Byrd, 2007;

2
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

Hatipoglu, Alvarez, & Ertuna, 2016; Khazaei et al., 2015; governance (Khazaei et al., 2015). Whilst there may be no requirement
Rasoolimanesh, Jaafar, Ahmad, & Barghi, 2017; Saufi, O'Brien, & for equal treatment between stakeholders, stakeholder theory informs
Wilkins, 2014; Tosun, 2000, 2006; Waligo et al., 2013). The benefits of the importance of acknowledging, considering and addressing their
stakeholder participation are undoubted, however, finding effective interests (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005).
ways to involve individuals and groups is not an easy task. This process Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) argue that stakeholders are dif-
can be complicated because the process from awareness and attitudes to ferentiated by salient levels. They define salience as the degree of at-
intention and action are influenced by various factors (Ajzen, 1991). tention (or priority) that managers give to competing stakeholder
These three research streams can be seen as a process of planned be- claims (Mitchell et al., 1997). The salient level of a stakeholder is de-
haviour given that stakeholder perspectives, attitudes, awareness, and termined by the attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency. For ex-
interactions, are seen as the basis for their participation (actions) in ample, because resources of an organisation (or a destination) are
tourism development. Conversely, stakeholder participation can influ- limited, managerial attention is prioritized for powerful and salient
ence their perspectives and attitudes. As Hatipoglu et al. (2016) note, stakeholders (Khazaei et al., 2015; Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005). For this
when individuals and groups are involved in tourism with high levels of reason, there is increasing concern for disadvantaged and less powerful
interaction with other stakeholders, they are more knowledgeable stakeholders (Khazaei et al., 2015; Truong, Hall, & Garry, 2014;
about tourism which leads to increased engagement in tourism devel- Wearing, Wearing, & McDonald, 2010). More recent stakeholder re-
opment. search recommends flexibility in strategies for understanding stake-
holder motivations, addressing this issue by exploring the engagement
of marginal and less powerful groups and finding that cooperative re-
2.1.1. Stakeholder involvement in sustainable development
lationships can emerge between stakeholders (Khazaei et al., 2015).
In terms of sustainable tourism development, various local, national
Advances in stakeholder theory respond to the need for broad in-
and global stakeholders are involved, including governments, non-
volvement of all stakeholders (especially host communities), and their
government organisations, tourism industry sectors, host communities,
collaboration in tourism planning, policy, and decision-making (Ellis &
tourists, academia and the media (Ellis & Sheridan, 2014; Swarbrooke,
Sheridan, 2014; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017; Saufi et al., 2014;
1999). Byrd and Gustke (2004) seek to understand stakeholder support
Swarbrooke, 1999).
for sustainable tourism development, and stakeholder participation in
Stakeholder theory is clearly essential to understanding tourism
tourism and political activities. They present a decision tree that
stakeholders and their perceptions and roles in destination develop-
identifies twelve stakeholder groups along the axes of support for sus-
ment, however, its limitation lies in a lack of attention to relationships
tainable development and participation in tourism (see, Fig. 1).
and interactions between the stakeholders (Beritelli, 2011). Stakeholder
Fig. 1 illustrates a model that shows that stakeholders may have a
theory focuses on dyadic relationships between each stakeholder and an
low level of participation in the tourism industry, yet they strongly
organisation, but what is often neglected is the complex relationships
support sustainable development. On the other hand, stakeholders may
that exist between stakeholders and stakeholder networks. In this re-
have a low level of support for sustainable tourism development even
gard, Mistilis et al. (2014) note that an organisation has to respond not
when they are highly involved in the tourism industry. Thus, all kinds
only to the influence of each of its stakeholder but also to the com-
of stakeholders can express their concern and contribute to the
plexities of inter-stakeholder relationships. Stakeholder theory also
achievement of sustainable development regardless of their involve-
neglects the roles of non-human actors, such as place and culture
ment in tourism, and vice versa.
(Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Luoma-aho & Paloviita, 2010). Yet, as Driscoll
and Starik (2004, p. 69) argue, non-human actors should be “the pri-
2.1.2. Stakeholder theory mordial and primary stakeholder of all firms, deserving of immediate
Freeman's (1984) stakeholder theory has been applied to the stra- attention by management researchers and practitioners”.
tegic management of industries, organisations, societies and commu- Driscoll and Starik (2004) reconceptualise the three above-
nities, in efforts to understand the various ways of managing and mentioned attributes of stakeholder theory and develop an additional
governing an entity (such as, a tourism destination) consisting of many attribute of ‘proximity’, which refers to the “state, quality or fact of
individuals and groups (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hazra, Fletcher, & being near or next” (Driscoll & Starik, 2004, p. 63). This additional
Wilkes, 2017; Khazaei et al., 2015; Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005; Yuksel, attribute supports the reality that organisations are influenced by var-
Bramwell, & Yuksel, 1999). Stakeholder theory provides a platform to ious external environments. While the stakeholder typology of power,
argue that the success of a tourism destination is dependent on stake- legitimacy, urgency, and proximity may be used to analyse both human
holder engagement; that destination management organisations need to and non-human actors engaged in tourism development, a problem
identify and understand interests of all stakeholders (Mowforth & Munt, arises when using these attributes to analyse non-human elements as
2016). Stakeholder theory emphasises the importance of stakeholders actors. This is because non-human actors may have power and legiti-
and their identification for tourism organisations and destination macy but they are unable to make a claim. Thus, there is a need to apply
other frameworks to examine and analyse the influence of non-human
Supporter for sustainable development

High actors in tourism research. The following section argues that network
10 7 4 1
analysis based on Actor Network Theory (ANT) is useful for addressing
this omission.

Moderate 5 2 2.2. Network analysis in tourism research

11 8

The complexity and fragmented nature of tourism makes network

analysis well-fit with tourism study (Scott et al., 2008; Van der Zee &
Low 12 9 6 3 Vanneste, 2015) and “may be more important than in other areas of the
economy of many countries” (Scott et al., 2008, p. 15). Tourism sta-
keholders are often connected because tourism comprises “com-
Low Low moderate High moderate High plementary products of activities, accommodation, transport and food
Participation in tourism co-exist alongside support activities and infrastructure to form a com-
plex system of connections and interrelationships” ((Pavlovich, 2003, p.
Fig. 1. Stakeholder groups (adapted from Byrd and Gustke (2004). 203), thus the industry is comprised of a mixture of both human and

3
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

non-human elements. Accordingly, the agglomeration, co-location, structure and networking processes, they differ in terms of their ap-
proximity, and interconnectedness of a range of individuals and groups plication (Scott et al., 2008; Van der Duim, Ren, & Jóhannesson, 2017).
in tourism destinations offer a fertile context for stakeholder and net- Finally, Van der Duim's (2005, 2007) tourismscapes responds to the
work study (Baggio et al., 2010; Chim-Miki & Batista-Canino, 2017; critical turn in tourism research and offers a practical framework for
Kylanen & Mariani, 2012). researchers to rethink how tourism networks can be researched. This
The application of a network approach in tourism research can be tool has the potential to provide further insight into the processes and
divided into three overarching streams based on the lens of researchers the dynamics of a network.
towards networks. The first considers a network as a perspective – as a
viewpoint, approach or lens of analysis aimed at understanding phe- 2.2.1. Social network analysis
nomena, whether or not they are perceived as networks. The second Social Network Analysis (SNA) is defined by Otte and Rousseau
views networks as one type of stakeholder interaction, whereby re- (2002, p. 441) as “a strategy for investigating social structures” that
search objects are perceived as existing in networks and can therefore provides a map of network actors and the linkages between them. In
be explained by network theory or stakeholder theory (Kimbu & this context, a social network is a “specific set of linkages among a
Ngoasong, 2013; Nogueira & Pinho, 2015; Presenza & Cipollina, 2010). defined set of persons, with the additional property that the char-
These first two streams of research often overlap and are implied within acteristics of these linkages as a whole may be used to interpret the
studies that seek to explain and visualise the structure of tourism net- social behaviour of the persons involved” (Mitchell, 1969, p. 2). Net-
works, for example a policy network (Dredge, 2006), a business net- work actors are social entities (that might be individuals, organisations
work (Tinsley & Lynch, 2001), network governance (Baggio et al., or collective units) and the linkages between them are known as rela-
2010), a collaborative academic network (Benckendorff & Zehrer, tional ties (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
2013; Racherla & Hu, 2010), a tourist attraction network (Liu et al., As well as identifying actors and the linkages between them, SNA
2017), a coopting network (Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003), a marketing explains information flows within the network through direct links
network (Nogueira & Pinho, 2015), a tourist expenditure network from an actor to other actors, and indirect links via bridging actors.
(Abbruzzo et al., 2014), and a leadership network (Hristov et al., 2018). However, SNA neglects the factors that shape the development and
In these studies, a mathematically-informed network analysis is often dynamics of networks (Albrecht, 2013). These factors are important
applied. An assumption is that network analysis is well-suited for the because they can change the centrality of actors, the density of the
nature of a phenomenon that involves linkages or connections between network, and other network characteristics; such as, how actors are
nodes. Social networks have been found to be significant for improving transferred into a network, why a network is created, and how messages
communication between stakeholders, and for explaining the processes are spread throughout a network without the change of meanings
of, and motivations underlying, knowledge transfer (Albrecht, 2013; (Albrecht, 2013; Dredge & Pforr, 2008). While actors of a social net-
Baggio & Cooper, 2010; Del Chiappa & Baggio, 2015). The third re- work interact to exchange information, they are not required to act
search stream relates to the more recent interest in exploring and ex- towards a collective goal which can make a social networking approach
plaining the formation of a network (Dedeke, 2017; Rodger, Moore, & impossible to examine a network seeking collective goals (such as,
Newsome, 2009; Tribe, 2010). In these studies, Latour's (2005) Actor implementing SDGs). For researchers seeking knowledge about how
Network Theory (ANT) has inspired new directions to study networks in destinations implement SDGs as a collective ambition, finding out how
tourism research. the collectif (Van der Duim, 2007) behaves when aligning their goals is
Drawing on Latour's (2005) concept of ‘assemblages’ in ANT, cou- crucial. A collectif is “an emergent effect created by the interaction of
pled with tourism ordering (Franklin, 2004; Jóhannesson, 2010), Van the heterogeneous parts that make it up” (Verschoor, 1997, cited in Van
der Duim (2005, 2007) introduced the concept of ‘tourismscapes’. der Duim, 2007, p. 965) which, in this case, is comprised of both the
Tourismscapes are defined as “actor–networks transgressing different human and non-human elements of a tourism network. The following
societies and regions and connecting systems of transport, accom- discussion explains how ANT has been introduced into the tourism
modation and facilities, tourism resources, environments, technologies, literature to address these limitations.
people, and organizations” (Van der Duim, Ren, & Jóhannesson, 2013,
p. 7). Within tourismscapes, a range of human and non-human elements 2.2.2. Actor-network theory
are recognised, including tourists, tourism suppliers, tourism materi- Actor Network Theory (ANT) focuses on how stakeholder entities
ality, and machines and technologies. These elements are viewed as the shape and impact each other (Vicsek, Kiraly, & Konya, 2016) ac-
basis for locating human and non-human actors in tourism destination knowledging that the network is space where associations are formed
development, for the purposes of this paper, the authors drew from Van and processes of translation occur. Symmetry and association emerge as
der Duim (2007) work to develop the model depicted in Fig. 2. overarching principles in ANT (Van der Duim, 2007), whereby sym-
Tourismscapes are heterogeneous networks that recognise modes of metry is expressed through associations between human actors and
ordering that can create different versions of tourism and tourism non-human actors, as well as through the relationships between social
destinations according to the type of actor involved. Modes of ordering and technical elements (Beard, Scarles, & Tribe, 2016; Latour, 2005).
are coherent sets of strategic notions carried out in the materiality of Thus, ANT provides an analytical tool for studying innovation in
heterogeneous processes to make up tourism and constituent organi- tourism beyond the more commonly used human-centred theories, such
sations (Van der Duim et al., 2013). They are established through a as stakeholder theory (Buijtendijk, Blom, Vermeer, & Van der Duim,
translation process by which entities are modified or displaced by their 2018). In ANT, associations are developed through ‘translation’, the
various and contradictory interests (Jóhannesson, 2010; Ren, 2010). process of transforming heterogeneous entities into actor-networks
The multiplicity of modes of ordering can enhance the resilience and (Van der Duim, 2007). Through this process, the characteristics of ac-
reinvention possibilities of tourismscapes (Povilanskas & Armaitienė, tors are defined, the relationships between them are formed (Dedeke,
2011). 2017) and, most importantly, “the processes of negotiation, mobiliza-
Three main points emerge from the discussion in this section. First, tion, representation and displacement” are revealed (Van der Duim,
the main focus of network research in tourism appears to be quite ri- 2007, p. 966).
gidly used, to explain structures in social relationships with little at- Callon (1986) proposes four phases of translation: problematisation,
tention to how actors are transferred into a network or the roles that interessement, enrolment, and mobilisation. Through these phases, the
networks can play in encouraging stakeholder actions. Second, the two things that are previously different are related, from which con-
most documented network theories in the tourism literature are SNA vergences and homologies are created to identify new entities and re-
and ANT and, while both these theories seek to understand social lations (Tribe, 2010). Rodger et al. (2009) apply these phases of

4
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

Tourismscapes

Resources for tourist Machines and

Humans gaze technologies

Networks of
transportation of
People/organisations Natural and cultural
People using services people by air, sea, rail,
providing services objects
road

Human relics (Hotels, Wires, cables,

restaurants and microwave channels
Tourists Tourism suppliers entertainment
facilities)

Phones, text messages,

pictures and images
Other resources
meeting the tourist
gaze
Money transfers and
computer information

Fig. 2. Elements of tourismscapes (summarised from Van der Duim et al., 2013).

translation in their study of wildlife tourism, but divide ‘pro- to overcome those limitations. Researchers have to “unravel the nested
blematisation’ into ‘Obligatory Passage Point’ (OPP) and ‘problemisa- collectif under study, focusing on the linkages with material resources
tion’. In their study, they find the translation process invovles a focal/ and less visible actors” (Steins, 2001, p. 20). As Stein explains, decisions
principal actor who identifies interests (problemisation), defines goals of a collectif for a certain course of action are influenced by a variety of
and objectives (the OPP), and convinces other actors into accepting the relationships and their meanings, but networks will be reshaped over
OPP (interessement). After other actors accept these interests as defined time through the process of collective action itself.
by the principal actor (enrolment), the principal actor represents the Stakeholder theory, SNA, ANT have been applied to a wide range of
network (mobilization). Rodger et al. (2009) develop an additional industry contexts. Table 1 summarises some of the main applications of
phase named ‘black-boxing’ in which the identity and performance of these theories in the context of tourism research.
the network is formed through actions and regulated practices.
The term ‘black-box’ in the social sciences refers to “accepted and 2.3. Integration of theories for networking in sustainable tourism
agreed pieces of knowledge. A black-box is often part of a more com- development
plicated system that is so unquestioned and stable that it can be ignored
within that system” (Rice, 2011, p. 33 citing Latour, 1988). For ex- The above review of literature has presented individual applications
ample, the term ‘sustainability’ is a metanarrative and, as such, a of stakeholder theory, SNA, and ANT in tourism research, and outlined
complex black-box because “within this black-box are many more the limitations of each theory in addressing stakeholder interactions
black-boxes, each one a closed, fixed, stable world” (Rice, 2011, p. 33). and relationships. We now present four integrations of these theories, as
Therefore, the researcher must break complex black-boxes down into illustrated in Fig. 3.
smaller ones. Sustainability must then be broken down into areas, such Fig. 3 represents: (1) the integration of stakeholder theory and so-
as, sustainable architecture, sustainable energy systems and, in this cial network analysis; (2) the integration of stakeholder theory and
case, sustainable tourism. actor-network theory; (3) the integration of actor-network theory and
Networks in ANT are heterogeneous, and comprise both human and social network analysis; and, (4) the integration of stakeholder theory,
non-human actors that are ordered and defined with new functions in a social network analysis, and actor-network theory. Each of these in-
chain (Ren, 2010). According to Ren (2010, p. 202), actors involved in tegrations are explained below. Our development of the fourth in-
networks need “the capacity and capability of linking, associating and tegration seeks to address the deficiencies in current theory for un-
ordering within the networks”. These networks are formed through a derstanding networking in sustainable tourism development.
principal (or focal) actor who, through the translation process, de-
scribed above, engages other actors to implement specific tasks
2.3.1. Integration of stakeholder theory and social network analysis
(Dedeke, 2017; Paget, Dimanche, & Mounet, 2010; Rodger et al., 2009).
Stakeholder theories have been individually applied to identify
The principal actor must have sufficient knowledge and communication
stakeholder typologies. However, as discussed above, such typologies
skills (Dedeke, 2017), as well as an ability to connect with a wide range
do not consider the linkages between stakeholders and it is therefore
of stakeholders (Paget et al., 2010).
difficult to determine how they are related to each other and how cri-
While ANT explores the processes of identifying problems and set-
tical stakeholders influence other stakeholder (Nogueira & Pinho,
ting up goals, enrolling other actors and so on, it does not help us to
2015). For example, some stakeholders may have few linkages with
identify the principal actor in a network and does not uncover “how to
other stakeholders, but they are critical stakeholders who exert influ-
proceed or what realities we should choose” (Van der Duim et al., 2017,
ence over other stakeholders, denoting a relationship of power. In re-
p. 143). Further, the boundaries of an actor-network change frequently
sponse to such critiques, researchers have integrated stakeholder theory
and the actors involved in the network are dynamic, thus an actor-
with SNA to examine tourism stakeholder networks (Del Chiappa &
network might become an infinite chain of associations (Polk, 2015).
Presenza, 2013; Kimbu & Ngoasong, 2013; Nogueira & Pinho, 2015;
When applying ANT to form a network, there is a need to select a
Presenza & Cipollina, 2010; Timur & Getz, 2008). For example, Del
purpose or basis of network interactions, and adopt actor identification
Chiappa and Presenza (2013) introduce some network properties as

5
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

Table 1
Application of stakeholder theory, SNA, and ANT in Tourism Theory.
Theory Themes in tourism literature and examples

Stakeholder theory - Roles of stakeholders and stakeholder identifications (Byrd, 2007; Nogueira & Pinho, 2015; Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005)
- Stakeholder perspectives about tourism development (Byrd et.al, 2009; Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015)
- Stakeholder involvement in tourism development (Khazaei et.al, 2015), tourism marketing (Robson & Robson, 1996) and sustainable tourism
development (Byrd, 2007; Waligo et al., 2013)
- Stakeholder management (Sautter & Leisen, 1999)
- Stakeholder power (Hazra et.al, 2017)
Social network analysis - Types of tourism networks (Abbruzzo et.al, 2014; Baggio et al., 2010; Benckendorff & Zehrer, 2013; Dredge, 2006; Friedrichs Grangsjo Friedrichs
Grangsjo, 2003; Hristov et.al, 2018; Liu et.al, 2017; Racherla & Hu, 2010; Tinsley & Lynch, 2001).
- Knowledge transfers (Del Chiappa & Baggio, 2015)
- Environmental sustainability (Erkuş-Öztürk & Eraydın, 2010; Polese & Minguzzi, 2009)
- Innovation (Novelli et.al, 2006; Zach & Hill, 2017)
Actor-network theory - Stakeholder collaboration (Arnaboldi & Spiller, 2011)
- Roles of non-human actors in tourism development (Larsen, 2005; Nguyen et al., 2019; Ren, 2011)
- Environmental sustainability (Buijtendijk et.al, 2018; Dedeke, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019; Rodger et.al, 2009)
- Innovation (Buijtendijk et.al, 2018; Jóhannesson, 2010; Paget et al., 2010)
- Cultural tourism (Jansen-Verbeke, 2010; Ren, 2010)
- Event tourism management (Jóhannesson, 2010)
- Tourism academics culture and nature (Tribe, 2010)

view non-human actors as being involved in social networking

(Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Thus, this integration does not help to
address the limitations of stakeholder theory in explaining the roles
Stakeholder
non-human elements play in a network. When conceptualising tourism
theory
networks as collections of stakeholders, they can never be thoroughly
1 understood without considering the non-human entities that facilitate
2
4 the industry as their presence and/or absence significantly affects the
Actor- Social tourism system.
network 3 network
theory analysis 2.3.2. Integration of stakeholder theory and actor-network theory
The integration of stakeholder theory with ANT recognises the roles
and influences of non-human actors on human actions on both in-
dividual and organisational levels, which is critical to comprehensively
Fig. 3. Integrations of stakeholder theory and network theories.
understand complexities of an organisation's environment (Driscoll &
Starik, 2004; Luoma-aho & Paloviita, 2010). For example, as Steins
important to analyse in network structures and position of stakeholders (2001, p. 19) explains, “without his vessel, nets, oilskins, navigation
in network, such as the density of the network, and the positionality of equipment, fishing licences, crew, competing colleagues, and buyers of
actors within the network (Del Chiappa & Presenza, 2013). Similarly, his catch, the fisherman would not be a fisherman”. Similarly, without
Nogueira and Pinho (2015) find that the higher the network density, the physical existence of buildings, transport vehicles, infrastructure,
the more closely stakeholders work together in a team. According to internet, signage, brochures, restaurants, and so on, a place could not
Borgatti, Everett, and Johnson (2018), the positionality of actors within be a tourist destination.
a network relates to centrality which is measured by in- and out-degree, From an ANT perspective, multiple actors have the capacity to act
between-ness, and close-ness. A central stakeholder can be referred as and to take part in creating and mediating tourism places and experi-
prominent or influential, or having great control, involvement, prestige, ences; including human actors, and non-human actors, such as objects,
and power (Borgatti et al., 2018). technologies and spaces (Ren, 2010; Van der Duim, 2007). By re-
In this integration, the application of stakeholder theory has been cognising the significance of mediation, attention can be directed to
found to limit the number of actors involved in network analysis. materiality and hybridity in tourist performance and experience, with
Because SNA considers all relational interactions to identify nodes and both human and non-human actors positioned as central to tourism
linkages (which might lead to thousands of actors involved in the net- networks on an organisational or destination governance level working
work), by using stakeholder theory a range of insignificant actors can be towards achieving sustainability goals (Haldrup & Larsen, 2006). Based
eliminated. When identifying connections between key stakeholders on the principle of symmetry within ANT, the integration of stakeholder
implementing their functional role in a network, SNA strengthens ex- theory with ANT has been conceptualised by Luoma-aho and Paloviita
planations of stakeholder power and influences (Nogueira & Pinho, (2010) as “actor-networking stakeholder theory”. Non-human factors
2015). Network analysis explains the relation between the position and influencing human activities can be revealed during the practice of the
responsibility of stakeholders and their control over resources translation process (Luoma-aho & Paloviita, 2010).
(Nogueira & Pinho, 2015). This integration might, to some extent, ex- In addressing the limitations of stakeholder theory, ANT can provide
plain stakeholder actions in relation to power and network centrality understanding of the influence of networking in stakeholder colla-
(Beritelli & Laesser, 2011). boration (Arnaboldi and Spiller (2011). ANT recognises the legitimacy
Integrating stakeholder theory with SNA remains limited in its of stakeholders, and the interactions and relationships between stake-
ability to explore the formation and dynamics of networks. While sta- holders during a collaborative project (Arnaboldi & Spiller, 2011).
keholder theory focuses on identification and classification (Nogueira & When examined using ANT, the power and legitimacy attributes of
Pinho, 2015), SNA can only provide a ‘snapshot’ of the structure of stakeholders are seen to effect the level of representativeness and le-
network (Albrecht, 2013). As Dredge and Pforr (2008) note, SNA is not gitimisation which can increase for both powerful and less powerful
a normative theory that explains the process of actor interest and en- stakeholders (Arnaboldi & Spiller, 2011). This integration reveals that
rolment in a network. Moreover, as mentioned above, SNA does not ANT can help to explain the process of transferring potential power into

6
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

ability of act and influence. The framework presented in Fig. 4 can guide research processes
In stakeholder theory, power is viewed as a relational attribute of from research design through to data analysis by a step-by-step pro-
stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997) and it will become useless if it does gress. First, researchers can identify a potential list of stakeholders of
not go with legitimacy or urgency. Consequently, stakeholders find it both the tourism human and non-human actors that are necessary to
impossible to exert any influence in their organisation (Nogueira & implementing SDGs and the practical problems related to sustainable
Pinho, 2015). From an ANT perspective, power is not a thing or re- tourism development. Second, an integration of stakeholder theory and
source to possess, but a result of relational processes: the exercise of SNA can identify a social network of human actors (see, for example
power does not depend on entities but on actions and relations between Nogueira and Pinho (2015) discussed above.) This application of sta-
entities (Van der Duim, 2007). This difference in perspective can keholder theory with stakeholder attributes, and SNA with some im-
challenge the compatibility of these theories. However, underpinning portant network indices such as network centrality, can assist in seg-
both these theories is a similar argument: if power is not exerted or menting human stakeholders into different groups, such as central and
exercised through relational interactions, the entity holding this power critical stakeholders, to forecast potential stakeholders involved in an
becomes powerless. Arguably, those stakeholders who hold power actor-network. Third, an investigation guided by the ANT translation
might exercise their power if they enrol in actor-networks because actor process and rules of network actors can be conducted to explore the
networking brings a right for an actor to act and influence other actors process of stakeholder enrolment and motivation to act in a tourism
(Arnaboldi & Spiller, 2011). Thus, the integration of stakeholder theory actor network.
with ANT can address the limitations of SNA and stakeholder theory, This conceptual framework, given its integration of each theory,
precisely because non-human elements are seen to assist the transfer of recognises that actors cannot maintain their network function con-
stakeholders' potential power to actual power. tinuously and that actors change frequently. As Van der Duim (2007)
asserts with the concept of tourismscapes, recognition of the dynamism
2.3.3. Integrations of social network analysis and actor-network theory of actors and the continuity of the network is key. Whilst this means
To date, SNA and ANT have not been integrated in tourism to re- that the boundaries of actor-networks are unstable, networks can be
search networks. However, integrating these theories can help to ex- maintained through translation. Application of translation processes
plain a whole networking process and position actors in the network. from ANT enables consideration of the involvement of non-human ac-
For example in a healthcare network study, Wickramasinghe and Bali tors as equally important as human actors. It is through associations
(2009) introduce “S'ANT” as a convergence that helps to explain the between human and non-human actors that an actor-network - or
formation and structure of a network. In their study, Wickramasinghe tourismscapes - is revealed. Translation can be applied, practically, in
and Bali (2009) adopt ANT first to explore the process of forming a data collection. For example, if researchers employ qualitative
network. SNA is then applied to visualise the structure of network and methods, such as interviews, the translation process can guide questions
explain the knowledge flow in this network. This integration has a through the process of identifying problems and goals, encouraging
limitation that if, after applying ANT non-human actors are found to be other actors to be involved, and enrolling other actors or be enrolled to
involved in the network, and if the original principles of SNA are performing the network. The involvement and influence of non-human
maintained, it may be impossible to structure non-human actors in the elements can be tracked down from this process.
network by using SNA given its focus only on human interactions. From the results of the second step and an analysis of the six phases
It is somewhat surprising that this convergence has not been applied of translation processes, researchers can identify and allocate elements
in tourism. An integration of SNA and ANT might be beneficial to of tourismscapes into different groups (see, authors' model in Fig. 2),
overcoming the abovementioned limitations to improve understandings commencing with the principal actor and other key actors. Following
of existing integrations between stakeholder theory and SNA. This is the translation process enables the exploration of new elements in-
because ANT provides two essential principles to explain network for- volved in the tourismscapes, such as, how actors associate together and
mation. First, ANT sets ‘performance’ as a key rule for actors involved in how relationships between them are established for the implementation
a network (Ren, 2010), whereby “if there is no performance, there is no of sustainability goals (as identified in the first step and exposed during
network effect. Entities are no longer actors, no longer enrolled in the the translation processes). In the following section, this framework is
network” (Ren, 2010, p. 201). Outside the network these actors might described with reference to specific SDGs, and the potential practical
hold other functions but, in order to perform in the network and im- implications, methodological applications, and theoretical contribu-
plement network goals, the actors will be re-defined, re-assembled, re- tions are discussed.
ordered, re-enacted, and re-allocated new functions (Paget et al., 2010).
Second, ANT ‘translation’ process provides a practical perspective for 3. Discussion & conclusion
exploring the motivations of human actors in joining the network, i.e.,
network formation (Albrecht, 2013; Carroll, Richardson, & Whelan, This paper has outlined the role of stakeholder theory in providing a
2012; Luoma-aho & Paloviita, 2010). Through processes of network perspective of stakeholder identification to validate data for SNA
formation, actors are assigned characteristics and their relationships are (Nogueira & Pinho, 2015). SNA was discussed as a strategy for in-
established (Rodger et al., 2009). vestigating social structures and identifying the connections between
stakeholders (Otte & Rousseau, 2002). It was found that the integration
2.3.4. Integrations of stakeholder theory, social network analysis and actor- of stakeholder theory and SNA can enable the identification of potential
network theory human actors in tourismscapes. ANT was explained as a more practical
The literature review above provides insight into the possibilities and methodological theory for guiding exploration of the processes for
and limitations of various theories employed to understand stake- human actors involved in tourismscapes, from which the involvement
holders in tourism destination governance. These theories have been of non-human actors is exposed (Van der Duim et al., 2017). In the
critiqued in order to develop a conceptual framework to examine development of a conceptual framework, while the core concept of each
tourism networks and provide recommendations for the application of theory is maintained, it was found that these theories can complement
tourismscapes. This conceptual framework can enable the exploration each other and address limitations in explaining stakeholder interac-
of processes that form networks of actors working towards the tions and relationships. An integration of the three approaches can
achievement of the United Nations SDGs. The integration of the three guide research concerned with analysing the influence of non-human
theories reviewed above (stakeholder theory, SNA and ANT) as key to actors as key stakeholders at tourism destinations, and can assist in
understanding the processes of networking in the implementation of explaining the movement of stakeholders from one group to another
SDGs is proposed and depicted in the framework illustrated in Fig. 4. group when their power and legitimacy are changed.

7
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

Destination governance Sustainable tourism development

- Participatory - SDGs and Implementation of SDGs
- Voices - Stakeholder involvement and interaction

Actors necessary to be involved in

implementing SDGs

Stakeholder theory

Human actors
Social network analysis

Actor-network theory
- Translation
Social networks Non-humans
- Actor rules

Tourismscapes

Fig. 4. A framework for integrating stakeholder theory, social network analysis, and actor-network theory for the implementation SDGs.

The integration of the three theories presented in this paper can provides an avenue for understanding the uniqueness of destinations in
help to explore the changing power of stakeholders involved in a net- relation to the stage of tourism development, the types of tourism re-
work. Powerful stakeholders at a tourism destination can be identified sources, and the geographical and sociocultural characteristics. These
by the application of stakeholder theory, and the integration of stake- factors make tourism destinations distinguishable from each other in
holder theory with SNA. However, power is not an attribute of human terms of the number of stakeholders and the intensiveness of stake-
stakeholders: power arises in relations (Introna, 1997). Given its focus holder relationships. A multiple-case study can be conducted to make a
on association between actors rather than the positional attributes of comparison, but the selection of destinations should be carefully con-
actors, ANT can examine power relations in a network (Albrecht, sidered in terms of scales, as well as the similarities, and differences
2013). Therefore, in tourism stakeholder research, these two theories between them.
combined allow for comparisons of power before and after stakeholders With the third integration of SNA with ANT, and the fourth in-
are involved in an actor-network. Such analyses can explain why a tegration that combines all three theories, researchers can adopt a
destination stakeholder can have more influence than other stake- qualitative research or mixed-method research approach. While a
holders in destination governance where, in another situation, they quantitative study would be bounded by the mathematically framework
might not exert any influence. Conversely, some stakeholders may have of SNA, a qualitative study is framed by the principles of ANT and
a very limited voice in tourism policy-making but when they are in- stakeholder theory. Either a case study or participatory research
volved in a network, their voice may be heard and may influence the strategy is suitable for the research applying these theoretical integra-
outcomes of the network. Therefore, on the one hand, this conceptual tions. In particular, the integration of stakeholder theory and SNA can
framework recognises powerful and legitimate stakeholders and, on the be employed as a purposive sampling strategy, as this integration can
other hand, empowers less advantageous and less powerful stake- identify a range of stakeholders with different attributes, and help to
holders by acknowledging their right to act and influence other actors. categorise stakeholders into different groups.
The integration of stakeholder theories presented in this paper can The fourth theoretical integration proposed in this paper - devel-
assist research concerned with destination governance in terms of sta- oped into a framework converging stakeholder theory, SNA and ANT -
keholder participation and sustainable tourism development. With contributes to explain nuances in network formation and the roles of
different modes of ordering, each actor can be shaped differently in non-human elements in sustainable tourism development. The con-
different tourismscapes. Therefore, when the target of ordering is to ceptual framework guides the application of tourismscapes in ex-
support the achievement of a specific SDG, actors can be redefined amining a network of tourism actors operating and interacting to im-
through translation processes and allocated new functions related to plement SDGs. This framework is a response to calls for involving host
implementing sustainability goals. This framework focuses directly on communities in tourism decision-making, and increasing participatory
SDG 17 as it aims at networking and encourage a broad involvement of and bottom-up power for marginal and less advantaged stakeholders in
stakeholders. This is one of the key goals of the United Nations SDGs, tourism development (Khazaei et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2019;
referring to the importance of partnerships to implement the SDGs. Wearing, Wearing, & McDonald, 2010).
In relation to methodological approaches, the first integration of Future research on network approaches for sustainable tourism
stakeholder theory and SNA can be used in research explaining the development can apply this framework in three ways. First, to enhance
structure of networks in sustainable tourism development; such as the knowledge and understanding of the diverse and dynamic relationships
differences between networks for tourism generally, and sustainable between networks in tourism destinations. Second, to understand the
tourism specifically. This integration is most complementary to quan- various patterns of stakeholder relationships in sustainable develop-
titative network analysis, such as surveys of large samples. A mixed ment. Third, to engage, facilitate and enable research to “describe and
method approach can be employed in case of a small sample, in which enact relations, capacities, identities, and realities in ways that we be-
qualitative methods (such as interviews) are used to collect data and lieve improves our understanding of the workings and doings of
SNA techniques are used to analyse the data. The second integration of tourism” (Van der Duim et al., 2013, p. 10). These theoretical con-
stakeholder theory and ANT is most suitable to qualitative studies, tributions provide practical insight into the significance of non-human
particularly case study research, seeking to uncover the complexity of elements in encouraging stakeholder actions towards sustainable de-
human and non-human stakeholders at destinations. This integration velopment and enhanced destination governance.

8
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

References Diedrich, A., & García-Buades, E. (2009). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of
destination decline. Tourism Management, 30(4), 512–521.
Dincă, A. I., Surugiu, C., Surugiu, M., & Frenţ, C. (2014). Stakeholder perspectives on
Friedrichs Grangsjo, Y. V. (2003). Destination networking coopetition in peripheral sur- climate change effects on tourism activities in the northern Romanian Carpathians:
roundings. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vatra Dornei resort case study. HUMAN GEOGRAPHIES – Journal of Studies and
33(5), 427–448. Research in Human Geography, 8(1), 27–41.
Abbruzzo, A., Brida, J. G., & Scuderi, R. (2014). Determinants of individual tourist ex- Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
penditure as a network: Empirical findings from Uruguay. Tourism Management, 43, Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
36–45. Dredge, D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism. Tourism
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Management, 27(2), 269–280.
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Dredge, D., & Pforr, C. (2008). Policy networks and tourism governance. In N. Scott, R.
Albrecht, J. N. (2013). Networking for sustainable tourism–towards a research agenda. Baggio, & C. Cooper (Eds.). Network analysis and tourism: From theory to practice.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(5), 639–657. Clevedon: Channel View.
Anastasiadou, C. (2008). Stakeholder perspectives on the European Union tourism policy Driscoll, C., & Starik, M. (2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual
framework and their preferences on the type of involvement. International Journal of consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business
Tourism Research, 10(3), 221–235. Ethics, 49(1), 55–73.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents' pereception on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, Ellis, S., & Sheridan, L. (2014). A critical reflection on the role of stakeholders in sus-
665–690. tainable tourism development in least-developed countries. Tourism Planning &
Arnaboldi, M., & Spiller, N. (2011). Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: Development, 11(4), 467–471.
The case of cultural districts. Tourism Management, 32(3), 641–654. Erkuş-Öztürk, H., & Eraydın, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable
Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects tourism development: Collaborative networks and organisation building in the
of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(10), 1757–1771. Antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113–124.
Baggio, R., Scott, N., & Cooper, C. (2010). Improving tourism destination governance: A Franklin, A. (2004). Tourism as an ordering: Towards a new ontology of tourism. Tourist
complexity science approach. Tourism Review, 65(4), 51–60. Studies, 4(3), 277–301.
Beard, L., Scarles, C., & Tribe, J. (2016). Mess and method: Using ANT in tourism re- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
search. Annals of Tourism Research, 60, 97–110. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review of
Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination
Tourism Research, 43, 121–149. Marketing & Management, 1(1), 10–26.
Beritelli, P. (2011). Cooperation among prominent actors in a tourist destination. Annals Guo, X., Zheng, X., Ling, L., & Yang, C. (2014). Online coopetition between hotels and
of Tourism Research, 38(2), 607–629. online travel agencies: From the perspective of cash back after stay. Tourism
Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2007). Destination governance: Using corporate Management Perspectives, 12, 104–112.
governance theories as a foundation for effective destinationmanagement. Journal of Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: An improved
Travel Research, 46(1), 96–107. structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.
Beritelli, P., & Laesser, C. (2011). Power dimensions and influence reputation in tourist 1016/j.annals.2003.08.008.
destinations: Empirical evidence from a network of actors and stakeholders. Tourism Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2006). Material cultures of tourism. Leisure Studies, 25(3),
Management, 32(6), 1299–1309. 275–289.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks (2 ed.). Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy
LA, London: SAGE. analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 437–457.
Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy Hatipoglu, B., Alvarez, M. D., & Ertuna, B. (2016). Barriers to stakeholder involvement in
approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 459–477. the planning of sustainable tourism: The case of the Thrace region in Turkey. Journal
Bramwell, B., Higham, J., Lane, B., & Miller, G. (2017). Twenty-five years of sustainable of Cleaner Production, 111, 306–317.
tourism and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism: Looking back and moving forward. Hazra, S., Fletcher, J., & Wilkes, K. (2017). An evaluation of power relationships among
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(1), 1–9. stakeholders in the tourism industry networks of Agra, India. Current Issues in
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2014). The “critical turn” and its implications for sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 278–294.
tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(1), 1–8. Hristov, D., Minocha, S., & Ramkissoon, H. (2018). Transformation of destination lea-
Buijtendijk, H., Blom, J., Vermeer, J., & Van der Duim, R. (2018). Eco-innovation for dership networks. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 239–250.
sustainable tourism transitions as a process of collaborative co-production: The case Imran, S., Alam, K., & Beaumont, N. (2014). Environmental orientations and environ-
of a carbon management calculator for the Dutch travel industry. Journal of mental behaviour: Perceptions of protected area tourism stakeholders. Tourism
Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1222–1240. Management, 40, 290–299.
Burrai, E., Font, X., & Cochrane, J. (2015). Destination Stakeholders' perceptions of vo- Introna, L. D. (1997). Management, information and power. London: MACMILLAN.
lunteer tourism: An equity theory approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, Ioannides, D. (1995). A flawed implementation of sustainable tourism: The experience of
17(5), 451–459. Akamas. Cyprus. Tourism Management, 16(8), 58.53–592.
Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Jansen-Verbeke, M. (2010). Transformation from historic cityscapes to urban tour-
Applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review, ismscapes. Rivista di Scienze del Turismo, 2.
62(2), 6–13. Jóhannesson, G. T. (2010). Emergent Vikings: The social ordering of tourism innovation.
Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder per- Event Management, 14(4), 261–274.
ceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, Khazaei, A., Elliot, S., & Joppe, M. (2015). An application of stakeholder theory to ad-
30(5), 693–703. vance community participation in tourism planning: The case for engaging im-
Byrd, E. T., & Gustke, L. D. (2004). Identifying tourism stakeholder groups based on migrants as fringe stakeholders. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(7), 1049–1062.
support for sustainable tourism development and participation in tourism activities. Kimbu, A. N., & Ngoasong, M. Z. (2013). Centralised decentralisation of tourism devel-
In F. D. Pineda, C. A. Brebbia, & M. Mugica (Eds.). Sustainable Tourism. WIT Press. opment: A network perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 235–259.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the Kuvan, Y., & Akan, P. (2012). Conflict and agreement in stakeholder attitudes: residents'
scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 196–233. and hotel managers' views of tourism impacts and forest-related tourism develop-
Carroll, N., Richardson, I., & Whelan, E. (2012). Service science: An actor-network theory ment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 571–584.
approach. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, Kylanen, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2012). Unpacking the temporal dimension of coopetition
4(3), 51–69. in tourism destination: Evidence from finish and Italian theme parks. Anatikia -
Chen, J. S. (2015). Tourism stakeholders attitudes toward sustainable development: A International journal of Tourism and Hospitality research, 231, 61–74.
case in the Arctic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 225–230. Kylanen, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2014). Cooperative and Coopetitive practices: Cases from
Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2017). The coopetition perspective applied to the tourism industry. In M. M. Mariani, R. Baggio, D. Buhalis, & C. Longhi (Vol. Eds.),
tourism destinations: A literature review. Anatolia, 28(3), 381–393. Tourism management, marketing and development. Vol. 1. New York: Palgrave
Creaco, S., & Querini, G. (2003). The role of tourism in sustainable economic develop- Macmillan.
ment. Paper presented at the 43rd congress of the European regional science association: Lane, B. (2018). Will sustainable tourism research be sustainable in the future? An opi-
"peripheries, centres, and spatial development in the new Europe", Finland. nion piece. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Czernek, K. (2013). Determinants of cooperation in a tourist region. Annals of Tourism j.tmp.2017.12.001.
Research, 40, 83–104. Larsen, J. (2005). Families seen sightseeing: Performativity of tourist photography. Space
Damayanti, M., Scott, N., & Ruhanen, L. (2017). Coopetitive behaviours in an informal and Culture, 8(4), 416–434.
tourism economy. Annals of Tourism Research, 65, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ Press.
annals.2017.04.007. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford
Dedeke, A. N. (2017). Creating sustainable tourism ventures in protected areas: An actor- university press.
network theory analysis. Tourism Management, 61, 161–172. Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism management (3 ed.). Australia: Pearson Education.
Del Chiappa, G., & Baggio, R. (2015). Knowledge transfer in smart tourism destinations: Liu, B., Huang, S. S., & Fu, H. (2017). An application of network analysis on tourist
Analyzing the effects of a network structure. Journal of Destination Marketing & attractions: The case of Xinjiang, China. Tourism Management, 58, 132–141.
Management, 4(3), 145–150. Lundie, S., Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (2007). Environmental-economic measures of tourism
Del Chiappa, G., & Presenza, A. (2013). The use of network analysis to assess relationships yield. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 503–519.
among stakeholders within a tourism destination: An empirical investigation on Costa Luoma-aho, V., & Paloviita, A. (2010). Actor-networking stakeholder theory for today's
Smeralda-Gallura, Italy. Tourism Analysis, 18(1), 1–13. corporate communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

9
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

15(1), 49–67. in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633.

Merinero-Rodríguez, R., & Pulido-Fernández, J. I. (2016). Analysing relationships in Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing
tourism: A review. Tourism Management, 54, 122–135. world- the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22, 289–303.
Milne, S. S. (1998). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the global-local Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of
nexus. In C. M. Hall, & A. A. Lew (Eds.). Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective. Tourism Research, 29(1), 231–253.
USA: Longman. Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development.
Mistilis, N., Buhalis, D., & Gretzel, U. (2014). Future eDestination marketing: Perspective Tourism Management, 27(3), 493–504.
of an Australian tourism stakeholder network. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), Trawoger, L. (2014). Convinced, ambivalent or annoyed: Tyrolean ski tourism stake-
778–790. holders and their perceptions of climate change. Tourism Management, 40, 338–351.
Mitchell, J. C. (1969). Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships Tribe, J. (2010). Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of
in Central African towns. Manchester University Press. Tourism Research, 37(1), 7–33.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. G., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder Truong, V. D., Hall, C. M., & Garry, T. (2014). Tourism and poverty alleviation:
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Perceptions and experiences of poor people in Sapa, Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Tourism, 22(7), 1071.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2016). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and UN (2015). Sustainable delepment goals. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/
new tourism in the third world (4 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
Murphy, P. E., & Murphy, A. E. (2004). Strategic management for tourism communities: UNWTO (1998). Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism. Madrid: World
Bridging the gaps. Vol. 16. Channel View Publications. Tourism Organization.
Nguyen, T. Q. T., Young, T., & Johnson, P. (2019). Tourismscapes for sustainable devel- UNWTO (2016). Tourism and the sustainable development goals. (Retrieved from Madrid,
opment: A case study in Da Nang, Vietnam. Paper presented at the CAUTHE conference Spain:).
2019, sustainability of tourism, Hospitality & Events in a disruptive digital age, Cairns, Van der Duim, R. (2005). Tourismscapes. An actor-network perspective on sustainable tourism
Queensland, Australia. development. PhD DissertationNetherlands: Wageningen University.
Nogueira, S., & Pinho, J. C. (2015). Stakeholder network integrated analysis: The specific Van der Duim, R. (2007). Tourismscapes an actor-network perspective. Annals of Tourism
case of rural tourism in the Portuguese Peneda-Gerês National Park. International Research, 34(4), 961–976.
Journal of Tourism Research, 17(4), 325–336. Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2013). Ordering, materiality, and
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the multiplicity: Enacting actor–network theory in tourism. Tourist Studies, 13(1), 3–20.
information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453. Van der Duim, R., Ren, C., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2017). ANT: A decade of interfering with
Padurean, L. (2010). Implementing destination governance. Networking for sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 64, 139–149.
tourism (pp. 193–201). BEST EN Think Tank X. Van der Zee, E., & Vanneste, D. (2015). Tourism networks unravelled; a review of the
Paget, E., Dimanche, F., & Mounet, J.-P. (2010). A tourism innovation case: An actor- literature on networks in tourism management studies. Tourism Management
network approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 828–847. Perspectives, 15, 46–56.
Pan, S.-Y., Gao, M., Kim, H., Shah, K. J., Pei, S.-L., & Chiang, P.-C. (2018). Advances and Verschoor, G. (1997). Tacos, Tiendas and Mezcal: An Actor-network Perspective on Small-
challenges in sustainable tourism toward a green economy. Science of the Total scale Entrepreneurial Projects in Western Mexico. PhD. DissertationThe Netherlands:
Environment, 635, 452–469. Wageningen University.
Pavlovich, K. (2003). The evolution and transformation of a tourism destination network: Vicsek, L., Kiraly, G., & Konya, H. (2016). Networks in the social sciences: Comparing
The Waitomo caves, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 24(2), 203–216. actor-network theory and social network analysis. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and
Pechlaner, H., Volgger, M., & Herntrei, M. (2012). Destination management organizations Social Policy, 7(2), 77–102.
as interface between destination governance and corporate governance. Anatolia – An Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23(2), 151–168. multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management, 36,
Polese, F., & Minguzzi, A. (2009). Networking approaches for sustainable destination 342–353.
management. In M. Kozak, J. Gnoth, & L. L. A. Andreu (Eds.). Advances in tourism Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2015). Embedding stakeholders in sustainable
destination marketing : Managing networks. Taylor and Francis. tourism strategies. Annals of Tourism Research, 55, 90–93.
Polk, E. (2015). Communicating global to local resiliency: A case study of the transition Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Vol.
movement. Lexington Books. 8Cambridge university press.
Povilanskas, R., & Armaitienė, A. (2011). Seaside resort-hinterland Nexus: Palanga, Wearing, S. L., Stevenson, D., & Young, T. (2010). Tourist cultures: Identity, place and the
Lithuania. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1156–1177. traveller. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Presenza, A., & Cipollina, M. (2010). Analysing tourism stakeholders networks. Tourism Wearing, S. L., Wearing, M., & McDonald, M. (2010). Understanding local power and
Review, 65(4), 17–30. interactional processes in sustainable tourism: Exploring village–tour operator rela-
Racherla, P., & Hu, C. (2010). A social network perspective of tourism research colla- tions on the Kokoda track, Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1),
borations. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1012–1034. 61–76.
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Ahmad, A. G., & Barghi, R. (2017). Community parti- Wickramasinghe, N., & Bali, R. K. (2009). The S'ANT imperative for realizing the vision of
cipation in world heritage site conservation and tourism development. Tourism healthcare network centric operations. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory
Management, 58, 142–153. and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 1(1), 45–58.
Ren, C. (2010). Assembling the socio-material destination: An actor-network approach to Yang, J., Ryan, C., & Zhang, L. (2013). Social conflict in communities impacted by
cultural tourism studies. Cultural tourism Tesearch methods (pp. 199–208). . tourism. Tourism Management, 35, 82–93.
Ren, C. (2011). Non-human agency, radical ontology and tourism realities. Annals of Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interview and tourism planning
Tourism Research, 38(3), 858–881. at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20, 351–360.
Rice, L. (2011). Black-boxing sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4), Zach, F. J., & Hill, T. L. (2017). Network, knowledge and relationship impacts on in-
32–37. novation in tourism destinations. Tourism Management, 62, 196–207.
Robson, J., & Robson, l. (1996). From shareholders to stakeholders: Critical issues for Zehrer, A., & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of
tourism marketers. Tourism Management, 17(7), 533–540. destination competitiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2),
Rodger, K., Moore, S. A., & Newsome, D. (2009). Wildlife tourism, science and actor 120–126.
network theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4), 645–666.
Ruhanen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., & McLennan, C.-l. J. (2015). Trends and patterns in
sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sustainable Thi Quynh Trang Nguyen is a PhD candidate in the
Tourism, 23(4), 517–535. Newcastle Business School, Faculty of Business and Law,
Saufi, A., O'Brien, D., & Wilkins, H. (2014). Inhibitors to host community participation in The University of Newcastle. She holds a fully-funded
sustainable tourism development in developing countries. Journal of Sustainable scholarship PhD study to research destination management,
Tourism, 22(5), 801–820. governance, stakeholder relationships, network analysis,
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). MANAGING STAKEHOLDERS a tourism planning and sustainable development. Trang held the position of
model. Annals ofTourism Research, 26(2), 312–328. lecturer in the Tourism and Hospitality Faculty at the
Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analysis and tourism: From theory to National Economics University in Vietnam from 2010 to the
practice. Vol. 35. Channel View Publications. commencement of her candidature.
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical
divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19.
Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders exploring identity and
salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711–734.
Steins, N. A. (2001). New directions in natural resource management the offer of actor-
network theory. IDS Bulletin, 32(4), 18–25.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Cabi.
Timur, S., & Getz, D. (2008). A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sus-
tainable urban tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
20(4), 445–461.
Tinsley, R., & Lynch, P. (2001). Small tourism business networks and destination devel-
opment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(4), 367–378.
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process

10
T.Q.T. Nguyen, et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 32 (2019) 100575

Tamara Young is a Senior Lecturer and Researcher in the Stephen Wearing is an internationally recognised aca-
Newcastle Business School. Her research is in the multi- demic who has published widely in the fields of leisure and
disciplinary field of tourism studies, with a particular em- tourism authoring over 10 books in the field of leisure and
phasis on critical tourism theory and cultural research tourism, over 50 refereed papers and a wide range of in-
methodologies. She co-authored Tourist Cultures: Identity, dustry based articles. He is best known for his substantial
Place and the Traveller (Wearing, Stevenson, & Young, 2010) contributions in ecotourism, community based and volun-
and has published widely in book chapters and interna- teer tourism, environmentalism, the sociology of leisure
tional journals. Tamara's research on tourism curriculum, in and tourism and the social sciences in protected area
particular the Indigenisation of Curriculum, is nationally management. Stephen has received numerous awards from
and internationally recognised. Her commitment to deli- Industry and Government for his work in the Leisure and
vering research informed teaching has received national Tourism. He is a Fellow and Life Member of Parks and
recognition. Tamara is an industry engaged researcher Leisure Australasia, and is a long standing editor of the
committed to enhancing local and regional tourism cap- Parks and Leisure Australasia Journal.
abilities and is well recognised as a leading educator in tourism and business.

Patricia Johnson is Lecturer and Researcher in the

Newcastle Business School. Her research maintains an inter-
disciplinary and inter-cultural focus in the emerging field of
cosmopolitanism and questions relating to cultural literacy
and global citizenship. She has substantial experience in
undergraduate teaching and her publications are in the
fields of Tourism, Leisure and Recreation, Social Science
and Cultural Studies. Patricia works with industry and
government, she designed and coordinated executive
training for the Kenya Public Service Commission and re-
searches in this sector. As coordinator of undergraduate
mobility programs she is actively engaged in embedding a
sense of global citizenship in undergraduate students by
designing and conducting international outbound study
tours (Kenya) and international internships (Global).

11