Integrating Sustainability into the Strategic Planning of National Tourism Organizations

Journal of Travel Research 49(2) 191­–205 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0047287509336472 http://jtr.sagepub.com

Evi C. Soteriou1 and Harris Coccossis1

Abstract This article describes an empirical study undertaken in national tourism organizations in Europe responsible for tourism planning to investigate the parameters that compose the capability to integrate sustainability into the strategic planning process and the factors that contribute to its development. Results indicate that both strategic planning and the integration of sustainability in national tourism organizations face problems that limit the potential of strategic planning to contribute substantially toward sustainability. Further to problems traced within the organizations and in the design of the strategic planning process, the research reveals the negative influence exerted by various exogenous factors. This article discusses the role that national tourism organizations can play in operationalizing sustainable tourism and pursuing it through strategic planning and suggests ways to improve performance in this respect. It also reveals a large scope for more empirical work for the integration of sustainability into strategic planning for tourism at a national level. Keywords strategic planning, sustainability, national tourism organizations, capability to integrate sustainability into strategic planning

The intimate relationship between sustainability and planning is extensively stressed in the literature on both sustainable development and sustainable tourism (Bramwell and Henry 1996; Dutton and Hall 1989; Eber 1992; Inskeep 1991; Lanzarote World Conference 1995; Tourism Sustainability Group 2007; UN DESA 2002; UNEP and WTO 2005; WCED 1987; WTO 1993, 2004; WTO, WTTC, and Earth Council 1996). However, as the article aims to demonstrate, the contribution that strategic planning in particular can make to sustainable tourism development needs to be further explored. The article examines the relationship between strategic planning and sustainable tourism. It defines the parameters of a capability for integrating sustainability into strategic planning and explores factors that can influence it. The capability is in turn investigated through empirical research undertaken in European national tourism organizations, thus shedding more light on the strategic planning practices of these organizations and their efforts to integrate sustainability. Finally, the implications for both management and research are discussed.

Literature Review Sustainable Development and Strategic Planning Various definitions of sustainable development exist in the literature. It can be viewed as “a process which allows

development to take place without degrading or depleting the resources . . . so that they remain able to support future as well as current generations” (World Conservation Union in WTO 1993, p. 10). Sustainable development is not therefore seen as a fixed state of harmony but as a process of change (WCED 1987) that aims to secure a harmonious relationship between development and the environment (ecological, economic, and sociocultural). Strategic planning often appears in the literature as more appropriate than other forms of planning for the management of change. Its main characteristic is the “fit” that it aims to achieve between resources and capabilities with the constantly changing environment (Andrews 1971; Bourgeois 1980; Rhyne 1985; Venkatraman and Camillus 1984; Venkatraman and Prescott 1990). Various definitions of strategic planning can be found in the literature with no real consensus on its exact meaning. It can be approached as a disciplined process for taking important decisions that form the nature and direction of activities (Olsen and Eadie 1982) concerning an organization (private or public), a sector, a community and so on, depending on the level on which it is applied. Strategic planning could also be studied as a system, through which decisions at various levels are taken, implemented, and controlled (Bryson and Roering 1987).

1

University of Thessaly

192 Despite their implicit conceptual relationship, strategic planning and sustainable development have not been extensively related in the literature. Strategic planning, with its roots in the private sector, has traditionally been associated with business planning. Its emphasis and tools have been more related to economic and financial performance. The integration of environmental and sociocultural concepts and tools into the process of strategic planning is relatively recent. As Judge and Douglas (1998) indicate, “due to the emerging nature of the environment as a strategic issue, work has only begun to investigate the conceptual linkages between strategic management and the environment” (p. 242). Research on the integration of all parameters of sustainability (ecological, sociocultural and economic) into strategic planning is even more scarce: “an area where much theoretical and empirical work remains to be done” (Banerjee 2002, p. 112). Both strategic planning and sustainability have received intense criticism, particularly with regards to their application. Strategic planning has been criticized mainly for easily being transformed into a sterile process that has no relationship with strategic thinking and practice (Bryson and Roering 1987; Mintzberg 1994; Rhyne 1985). Sustainability, on the other hand, has been criticized for being an abstract, elusive concept, posing a real challenge to all those who should contribute to its implementation, especially at the decision-making levels (Farrell and Hart 1998; Holden 2001; Holmberg 1998; Turner 1997). Hunter (1997) claims that sustainable development is not a single absolute standard. Based on previous work by Turner (1994), he suggests that a wide spectrum of attitudes and levels of commitment toward sustainable development exist, ranging from very weak, growth-oriented, and resource-exploitative to very strong, resource-preservationist. Farrell and Hart (1998) indicate three main conceptions of sustainability that should be incorporated in a good working definition of sustainability: 1. The Critical Limits view focuses on preservation of the ecosystems and respect of the limits that they impose. 2. The Competing Objectives view focuses on balancing economic, social, and ecological goals. 3. Inter and Intragenerational Equity: Intergene­rational equity entails leaving future generations an ecological and viable planet while intragenerational equity focuses on the equal distribution of benefits and costs from development among people at present. Sustainability is a concept of both substance and process (IISD 2002). Further to parameters of substance like the ones indicated above, process elements such as local involvement, wide participation and cooperation, transparency, and consensus seeking are also important for a holistic conceptualization of sustainable development.

Journal of Travel Research 49(2)

Sustainable Tourism and Strategic Planning in National Tourism Organizations The implementation of both strategic planning and sustainability in the tourism sector and the planning undertaken by national tourism organizations (NTOs) in particular presents the researcher with an increased level of difficulty. Traditionally, research into the strategic planning of tourism organizations has concentrated mainly on tourist enterprises (Athiyaman 1995; Gilbert and Kapur 1990; Phillips and Moutinho 1998). Research into the strategic planning practices of not-for-profit tourism organizations is a more recent development, an area where much empirical work remains to be done (Simpson 2001; Ruhanen 2004). Strategic planning in NTOs in particular “has received little research attention” (Soteriou and Roberts 1998, p. 21). An NTO is a country’s official organization that is responsible for the development and promotion of tourism in the country (Mill and Morrison 1985). Its form and responsibilities vary widely depending on various factors such as the political, economic, social, and cultural backgrounds of a particular country, the size of the country, and the importance of tourism to the national economy (Cooper et al. 1998; Mill and Morrison 1985; Taylor 1994; WTO 1997, 2006). Although various changes are observed in the form and functions of NTOs, planning is generally maintained as a main responsibility, often combined with other functions (Cooper et al. 1998; Lennon et al., 2006; Jeffries 2001; WTO 1997, 2006). The concept of sustainable tourism presents the researcher with additional challenges to those posed by researching strategic planning in NTOs. There is no real consensus in the literature on what sustainable tourism is, whether it applies to all types of tourism, what in fact should be sustained, and how this can be done (Butler 1999; Clarke 1997; Coccossis, 1996; Farsari, Butler, and Prastacos 2007; McCool, Moisey, and Nickerson 2001; Miller 2001; Swarbrooke 1999). The World Tourism Organization has revised its original definition of sustainable tourism development (WTO 1993) which was based mainly on the concept of intergenerational equity (meeting current and future needs), to attribute more importance to the balance that must be achieved among the environmental, social, and economic parameters of sustainability, the need to apply sustainability principles to all forms of tourism and the inclusion of poverty alleviation objectives (WTO 2004). Like its parental concept, sustainable tourism has received criticism in the literature for its vagueness, which is regarded as a key weakness for effective implementation (Fyall and Garrod 1997; Ioannides 2001; Sharpley 2002). Accordingly, a level of confusion can be expected in the tourism sector concerning what sustainable tourism entails and how it can be operationalized, that is, translated into practical steps and actions. Through their research, McCool, Moisey, and Nickerson (2001) indicated that the meanings attributed to sustainable tourism as well as the ways to achieve

193

Soteriou and Coccossis it vary significantly with limited levels of consensus. Much research is still required to turn sustainable tourism into a more operational concept (Hassan 2000; Miller 2001; McCool, Moisey, and Nickerson 2001). Sustainable tourism development has not been associated widely with strategic planning in the literature. Instead, integrated comprehensive planning has been proposed as the most appropriate form of planning for sustainable tourism development (Coccossis and Tsartas 2001; Dredge and Moore 1992; Inskeep 1991; Page and Thorn 1997; WTO 1993). However, as Simpson (2001) points out, strategic planning embodies many advantages that are coincident with key parameters of sustainable tourism.

Integration of Sustainability into Strategic Planning This article argues that to pursue sustainable tourism through strategic planning, an organization needs to develop a capability for the integration of sustainability into strategic planning. The concept of an organizational capability for strategic activity has been extensively explored in the literature. Lenz (1980) identifies two prevailing schools of thought: the descriptive and the analytical. According to the descriptive school, a strategic capability refers to unique values, methods of operation, and special knowledge that define the character of an organization and influence its ability to pursue a strategic direction. Advocates of the descriptive school (Drucker 1964; Selznick 1957) concentrate on those unique characteristics of an organization that derive from a series of commitments made by the organization. The analytical school, on the other hand, concentrates more on the sources of the strategic capability (referents) that enable an organization to pursue a strategic direction. A wide variety of such referents and criteria that can be used for the assessment of strategic capability are encountered in the literature. Many authors suggest that strategic capability can be attributed to organizational resources (Amit and Shoemaker1993; Ansoff 1965; Uyterhoeven, Ackerman, and Rosenblum 1973). Chamberlain (1968), on the other hand, claims that strategic capability does not limit itself to resources that an organization owns and controls but it can also be attributed to networks and relationships that it develops with its environment. Lenz (1980) defines strategic capability as the ability of an organization to successfully take action for its long-term development. He identifies three main referents of this capability, namely, (1) knowledge-based technique for value creation, (2) capacity to generate and acquire resources, and (3) general management technology. Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987) proposed a “generic” view of a planning system capability and view it as an index of system effectiveness. Based on prior work by Ramanujam, Venkatraman, and Camillus (1986), they define this generic capability as a complex construct that represents the ability

of the system to encourage both creativity and control. They approach it as “a desired outcome of cumulative effects of past cycles of planning” (Ramanujam and Venkatraman 1987, p. 456). Unlike Lenz (1980), Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987) focus on aspects of the planning system and not on skills relating to strategy content areas. Judge and Douglas (1998) introduced the concept of a capability to incorporate issues related to the natural environment into the strategic planning process. They used the definition proposed by Amit and Schoemaker (1993) concerning organizational capabilities as “a firm’s ability to deploy resources, usually in combination, using organizational processes to effect a desired end” (p. 35). They approached the capability to integrate the natural environment into the strategic planning process as more than a mere compliance with environmental regulations; they additionally tried to measure the proactiveness of the organization with respect to the natural environment. Banerjee (2002) also studied the integration of environmental issues into strategic planning, identifying two distinct approaches in the ways in which organizations learn to pursue it: 1. Single-loop approach, which is more short-term and limits itself to (a) compliance with environmental legislation, (b) sensitivity and support to environmental issues, and (c) the provision of limited environmental training to employees. 2. Double-loop approach, which is more long-term and aims at (a) the integration of environmental issues at corporate level instead of functional level, (b) higher level of investment in environmental protection, (c) provision of environmental education and training to clients, providers, and employees, and (d) the development of new green products.

Theoretical Development To define the capability for the integration of sustainability into the strategic planning for tourism at a national level, strategic planning and sustainable tourism development were explored and related. Given the varying definitions and approaches to both strategic planning and sustainable tourism development, the construct necessitated a careful definition. The literature review on the concept of capability also revealed the importance of a clear delineation of the construct, its referents and the factors that influence it (Lenz 1980).

Definition of Strategic Planning and Sustainable Tourism Development The concepts of strategic planning and sustainable tourism and the way they are understood and used were explored through research in NTOs, acknowledging their inherent

194

Journal of Travel Research 49(2)

Step 1 Environmental Scan/Situation Analysis

Step 2 Developing a Vision Statement

Step 3 Defining Goals and Objectives

Step 4 Identifying and Evaluating Alternative Strategies

Step 5 Selecting Strategies

Step 6 Developing Implementation/Action Plans

Step 7 Preparing Budgets

Step 8 Implementation

Step 9 Reviewing and Evaluating Progress

Figure 1. The Strategic Planning Process

ambiguity. Based on the premise that various levels of planning exist (Rhyne 1985), the degree to which strategic planning is performed in NTOs was examined using the construct of strategic planning comprehensiveness (Soteriou and Roberts 1998). Key elements in the strategic planning process (Figure 1) were identified in the literature (Calingo 1989; Camillus and Datta 1991; Ginter, Rucks, and Duncan 1989; Kaufman and Jacobs 1987), and the extent of their adoption by NTOs in planning for tourism was assessed. Similarly, the understanding of the concept of sustainable tourism development was explored through research. A series of sustainable tourism parameters were identified from the various definitions and principles for sustainable tourism found in the literature (Eber 1992; Hassan 2000;

Inskeep 1991; Lanzarote World Conference 1995; Miller 2001; WTO 1993, 2004) and were used to investigate the level of understanding of the concept by the participants in the research.

Definition of the Capability to Integrate Sustainability into Strategic Planning In line with the descriptive school, the capability to integrate sustainability into strategic planning (CIS) is defined as knowledge, skills, values, and ways of operation that serve the integration of sustainability into strategic planning. These elements are sought within the system of strategic planning that is placed in the epicenter of the research effort. CIS is regarded as a desired outcome resulting from previous circles of planning (Ramanujam and Venkatraman 1987). The capability is approached as an amalgam of subcapabilities that relate to the two major objectives of every strategic planning system as defined by Ramanujam, Venkatraman, and Camillus (1986): creativity and control. These represent the balance that every strategic planning system tries to achieve between the conceptual and the real, the plan and its implementation. To define the construct, core values and key success factors of both sustainability and strategic planning were sought in the literature and the relationship between the two concepts was explored. The underlying premise was that the subcapabilities composing CIS related to the ability of the system to both perform strategic planning and integrate sustainability into the strategic planning system. The subcapabilities that composed the so-called generic capability (Ramanujam, Venkatraman, and Camillus 1986 and Ramanujam and Venkatraman 1987) were adjusted to relate to a strategic planning system pursuing the sustainable development of tourism. The list was then expanded to include some additional subcapabilities that derive from the relationship between sustainability and strategic planning and could support the integration of sustainability into the system. The resulting components of the capability are presented in Table 1.

Referents Lenz (1980) stressed the importance of identifying the sources (referents) of an organizational capability that can facilitate its overall assessment. In line with Chamberlain’s (1968) view, it is proposed that the referents of CIS should be sought in the overall system and not limited to available resources. As an open system, strategic planning has a relationship of interdependence with its environment at different levels that contributes decisively to the development of the system, the way it operates and the capabilities that are accumulated. It is proposed that the capabilities developed within the strategic planning system are facilitated or inhibited by

195

Soteriou and Coccossis Table 1. CIS Assessment M

Control

M

Future horizon—continuous action, relating the future to the present Adjusting to change either of predicted or nonpredicted change Prediction

3.96

3.85

Adoption of a holistic approach

4.08

Expansion of tourism development options, covering both new and old areas, production of new ideas, innovation Development of sustainable comparative advantage for the destination

3.75

Learning, development of knowledge and skills for sustainable tourism development Integration of functions that contribute to sustainable tourism development Increase in motivation for the pursue of sustainable tourism development Cultivation of a sense for a common course of action toward sustainable tourism development Sustainable resource allocation

Creativity

3.92 Control CIS (M) = 3.79

Creativity

3.83 3.92

4.08

Improvement of communication Increase in involvement in decision making, basis for cooperation and partnership, consensus building Increase in capability for monitoring and control

3.83 3.50 3.67 3.63 3.58 3.83 3.58 3.70

Note: CIS = capability to integrate sustainability into strategic planning. CIS scores range from 1 (none) to 5 (very high).

characteristics of the system and the organization responsible for its development as well as by the relationship of the two with the external environment. The vital question therefore is, Which are those determining factors in the open system that contribute to the development of CIS? Nine factors relating to both the effective operation of the strategic planning system and its ability to successfully integrate sustainability were selected to be explored through research (Figure 2). These factors fall into three categories, namely exogenous factors, organizational factors, and system design factors.

Organizational Factors Resources The close relationship of resources to strategic capability was particularly stressed in the research undertaken by Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987) and Judge and Douglas (1998), although the construct definition varied considerably in each case. Both tangible and intangible resources were investigated through research, and more specifically (1) the existence of a planning unit, (2) the number and qualifications of staff, and (3) the training allocated to strategic planning, sustainable development, and related topics.

Exogenous Factors National Sustainable Development Strategy

Commitment of Top Management Team

Although the study concentrated on factors in the organization or the strategic planning system in an effort to trace elements within managerial control, one exogenous factor was selected from literature to be further investigated through research. The existence and effective operation of a national, integrated planning system aiming at sustainable development in general has been identified in the literature as an important factor influencing the ability of a country to achieve the sustainable development of tourism. Coccossis (in Coccossis and Tsartas 2001) stresses the fact that tourism cannot be regarded solely on a sectoral basis but should be part of an integrated national strategy for sustainable development. The formulation and implementation of a national sustainable development strategy (NSDS) was proposed in the Earth Summit of 1992 as one of the key mechanisms for achieving sustainable development.

An organizational factor that is also frequently examined in the literature in relation to strategic capability is the level of commitment exhibited by various parties (Javidan 1984; Lenz and Lyles 1981; Ramanujam and Venkatraman 1987). In the research undertaken by Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987), the commitment of line managers in strategic planning stood out as the most significant factor influencing planning capability. Ramanujam and Venkatraman concentrated on line managers, considering that the commitment of top management can be measured through the resource construct. However, as Hambrick and Finkelstein (1987) indicate, resource allocation can be the result of a decision taken by a single person with broad responsibilities. Hence it cannot be regarded as an indication of the commitment of the top management team. The commitment of the top management team to both strategic planning and sustainable tourism development and

196

Journal of Travel Research 49(2)

Exogenous Factors National Sustainable Development Strategy

Organizational Factors Top Management Commitment

Resources

System Design Factors

Functional Integration

Comprehensiveness

CIS Participation

Creativity

Internal Orientation

Control

External Orientation

Tools

Sustainability Consideration

Figure 2. Capability to Integrate Sustainability Into Strategic Planning (CIS) and the Strategic Planning System

its contribution toward the development of a capability for strategic planning was investigated through research.

System Design Elements Internal and External Orientation The internal and external orientation of the system as two factors influencing the strategic planning capability was investigated by Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987). They assessed the level of attention given to a series of internal and external factors and its contribution to strategic capability. A positive relationship was identified, although organizational factors such as resources and commitment proved to be more determinantal. The level of attention given to a number of internal and external factors in the NTO environment was examined in the framework of the research. The list of factors was extended to cover environmental and sociocultural issues in addition to other more traditional elements of the environment examined by prior research on strategic planning.

Use of Appropriate Tools In the research undertaken by Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987), the use of appropriate tools arose as the most significant factor influencing the capability of the system among the system design elements. Various tools can contribute to the integration of sustainability into the strategic planning system. Further to traditional strategic tools that allow for the integration of sustainability, provided that they attribute equal importance to economic, ecological, and sociocultural parameters (e.g., cost–benefit analysis, scenario analysis, risk analysis, forecasting models), additional tools related to sustainable development (e.g., carrying-capacity studies, environmental impact assessment studies, sustainability indicators) were examined.

Participation Participation is often stressed in the literature as a critical success factor for both strategic planning (Calingo 1989; Mintzberg 1994; Ramanujam and Venkatraman 1987; Reid

197

Soteriou and Coccossis 1989) and sustainable development (IISD 1996; Farrell and Hart 1998; Holden 2001; WCED 1987). This is by no means accidental, considering that 1. Both concepts depend on the contribution of many people for their successful implementation. 2. There is an evident need for an alignment toward the same, sustainable direction. 3. It is critical to develop planning systems that encourage strategic thinking, innovation, and a spherical examination of all views and perspectives. The degree of involvement of different levels of personnel within NTOs as well as of various bodies that could contribute in tourism planning and development were investigated in the context of the research.

Comprehensiveness Although variously defined in the literature, comprehensiveness can be approached as “the level of coverage of certain key activities of the strategic planning process” (Soteriou and Roberts 1998, p. 23). Calingo (1989) stresses the importance of a comprehensive process that leads to the development of effective strategies as opposed to a formalized process that might inhibit creative thinking. One of the key benefits of comprehensive strategic planning is that it can enable participants to keep the “big picture” and relate all the elements in the process toward an exhaustive decision making, implementation, and control (Soteriou and Roberts 1998).

Functional Integration The level of coverage of functions with the objective of integrating their demands in strategic planning is a factor frequently associated with strategic capability (Judge and Douglas 1998; Ramanujam and Venkatraman 1987). Ramanujam and Venkatraman (1987) defined this construct in terms of the emphasis that the system allocates to functions such as marketing, production, finance, human resources, purchasing, research, and development. In the research undertaken by Judge and Douglas (1998), the construct took the form of coordination of environmental issues with the aforementioned functions. Basic sustainability principles for the adoption of a holistic approach; the attribution of equal importance to the economic, ecological, and sociocultural aspects of development; and the use of new, innovative technologies and methods that contribute toward this end, point to the importance of integrating various sustainability-related functions into the strategic planning process. Further to the strictly economic functions, the integration of environmental, cultural, social, and technological functions was also explored through the research.

Level of Consideration of Sustainability in Strategic Planning In addition to functional integration, the extent to which sustainability is considered in strategic planning was investigated as a factor that could affect the capability of an organization to integrate sustainability into the strategic planning process. The degree that sustainability is incorporated in every single step of the process, from environmental scanning down to implementation and monitoring, was assessed through the research.

Method Empirical research was undertaken in NTOs in Europe responsible for tourism planning at a national level (Soteriou 2007). Two main considerations were taken into account when deciding on the methodology to be used: 1. The way in which tourism is organized varies significantly from country to country, thus affecting whether tourism planning is in fact undertaken at a national level, what type of planning, how, and by whom. Although planning is seen as an activity frequently undertaken by NTOs (WTO 1979), their functions vary widely, and destination planning is not performed by all these organizations (Choy 1993). 2. Research on the organization and responsibilities of NTOs is rare and there is a limited up-to-date information and coverage of countries. The latest information available at the time of the research was provided by a WTO Survey (1997) that obtained data from six European countries. A more recent survey secured information from seven European countries (WTO 2006). Twenty-eight countries were included in the sample using the list of member countries of the WTO Commission for Europe, countries in various areas of Europe, with different characteristics and at different stages of tourism development. Two rounds of investigations were undertaken from April to December 2004. First, the participants were inquired whether tourism planning was undertaken at a national level and whether it was the responsibility of their organization. At a second phase, a structured questionnaire was sent via e-mail to the tourism organizations of all countries included in the sample, excluding solely the ones replying that they did not undertake planning at a national level. All correspondence (screening questions and questionnaire) was undertaken in English and was addressed to the executive director of tourism organizations responsible for tourism planning at a national level.

198

• Nine member countries of the European Union: Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Hungary, and Austria • Six Mediterranean countries: Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Turkey, and Israel • Three island states: Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus • Six countries from mainland Europe: Czech Republic, Poland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia, Hungary, and Austria. The responses secured were considered representative given the following factors: 1. the small number of European countries and even smaller number of those undertaking tourism planning at a national level, and 2. countries from various parts of Europe participated in the research, with different characteristics and levels of tourism development. The limited participation of countries in prior NTO research enhanced the value of the results. Taking into consideration the limited size of the sample, basic statistical and descriptive analyses of the data were undertaken, providing some interesting insights into the strategic planning practices of NTOs and their ability to integrate sustainability into their planning systems.

Findings Participant Profile Seven organizations participating in the research had the form of government department in another ministry, with the remaining being equally divided between ministries for tourism and semigovernmental tourism organizations, bureaus, and authorities. As could be expected, ministries and other specialized organizations for tourism were significantly larger than departments in other ministries. All organizations

Comprehensiveness (M)

Questionnaire design provided for differences in tourism organization at a national level and planning practices. The basic constructs were operationalized using 5-point interval scales. Both close- and open-ended questions were used, providing for different practices and levels of understanding. The questionnaire was tested for validity. Four countries responded that they did not undertake tourism planning at a national level, namely Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Bulgaria. A reply was also received from the Portuguese Department of Tourism stating that it could not participate in the research because of structural changes being undertaken. More than half of the remaining countries in the sample participated in the research, 13 countries in total from various areas of Europe. Specifically:

Journal of Travel Research 49(2)

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50

3.54

4.08

3.77

3.23

3.62 3.46

3.38 3.15

3.08

4

5

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

1

2

3

6

7

8

9

Steps of the Strategic Planning Process

Figure 3. Strategic Planning Comprehensiveness

proved to be responsible for a number of other functions in addition to planning, such as development of the tourist product, research, licensing of tourist establishments, marketing, international relations, education, and training. Ministries and other specialized organizations for tourism generally displayed the widest range of responsibilities, including marketing and education or training that tend to be increasingly delegated to specialized organizations (WTO 1997, 2006). The majority of the respondents (9 of 13) were managers of the planning units, followed by top management. They were all university graduates and more than half of them were women.

Strategic Planning According to the findings, strategic planning does not seem to be undertaken in a comprehensive, exhaustive manner in NTOs. The emphasis lies on budget preparation as well as on vision and goal setting, which seem to be undertaken on a continuous or systematic basis. Significant steps of the process that can contribute to the cultivation of the strategic thought and the effective integration of sustainability, such as environmental scanning, assessment, and selection of alternative strategies, and monitoring and assessment of progress, do not seem to be undertaken on a systematic basis (Figure 3).

Integration of Sustainability into Strategic Planning At the same time, the integration of sustainability into the strategic planning process was rated average (mean of 3.38), with more emphasis given to the policy statement steps of the process (vision and goal setting) and with a decreasing level of integration as one proceeds toward implementation (Figure 4). The capability of the organizations to integrate sustainability into strategic planning was rated marginally higher than average (mean of 3.79), with slightly better ratings secured by the elements of Creativity as opposed to those of Control (Table 1).

199

Soteriou and Coccossis Table 3. Understanding of Sustainable Tourism Development (STD)

5.00 Integration of Sustainability (M)

4.50 4.00

3.33

3.77

3.38 3.17

3.50

Dimensions

3.42 2.62

2.83

2.77

2.50 2.00 1.50 1

2

3

4

Rank

3.08

3.00

1.00

Relevance to STD (M)

5

6

7

8

9

Steps of the Strategic Planning Process

Figure 4. Integration of Sustainability into Strategic Planning

Table 2. Factors Limiting the Ability of Strategic Planning to Contribute to Sustainability Factors Lack of statistical data, information, research, measurement of impacts, valuating results of complementary branches Political influences, internal political demands, strong interests of certain parts of the private sector Legal framework, insufficient legal enforcement, lack of control over commercial development Economic situation, budget limitations Lack of education, stakeholders’ understanding of sustainability principles Low awareness, involvement and commitment of stakeholders, insufficient commitment among developers and local authorities Interaction public and private sectors, noncooperation between stakeholders Low understanding or commitment of leaders Low acceptance of change, new input Lack of efficiency in public administration, bureaucracy Lack of agreement on ways to achieve sustainability Lack of control over commercial development

Frequency 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Note: Factors were specified by 11 respondents among 13.

The participants rated more highly the ability of strategic planning to contribute to sustainability (mean of 4.31). At the same time, a number of factors that could impair this ability were pointed out by the respondents (Table 2) that source from both the external and internal environments of NTOs.

Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development Most major conceptual parameters of sustainable tourism development were recognized by the participants but a clear emphasis was placed on the theoretical aspects and less on

Respecting the carrying capacity of ecosystems Conservation and protection of the natural and sociocultural heritage Minimizing negative economic, environmental, cultural, and social impacts Addressing the needs of both current and future generations Adopting a long-term perspective Addressing equally economic, environmental, and sociocultural issues Environmental management systems and eco-labels Global thinking Setting limits for growth Wide involvement and cooperation Improving quality of life Continuous learning Integrated planning and management Innovation and research Promoting alternative forms of tourism Enhancing competitiveness Regulation Economic viability Distributing equitably the benefits and burdens of tourism Addressing local concerns and achieving local involvement Recognizing the interdependencies between various sectors and actions

4.62   1 4.54   2 4.54

–

4.46   4 4.46 – 4.31   6 4.15   7 4.00   8 3.92   9 3.92 – 3.92 – 3.85 12 3.85 – 3.85 – 3.85 – 3.85 – 3.69 17 3.69 – 3.62 19 3.46

20

3.38

21

Note: Level of relevance ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (very high).

the practical means of pursuing it. Regulation, setting limits for growth, innovation and research, continuous learning, involvement and promoting alternative forms of tourism received lower ratings. The environmental sustainability seemed to the one most readily recognized. Less attention was given to the parameter of social equity and the equal distribution of costs and benefits (Table 3). Addressing local concerns and achieving local involvement as well as recognizing the interdependencies of tourism with other sectors of the economy received the lowest ratings.

Factors That Could Affect CIS The investigation of factors that could affect CIS sheds light on a number of problems inhibiting the effective integration of sustainability into strategic planning. Regarding the resources invested in the integration of sustainability into strategic

200

Journal of Travel Research 49(2)

Table 4. Personnel Training Areas Strategic planning and management Sustainable development Forms of alternative tourism Environmental impacts, trends, and management Cultural and social impacts, trends, and management Economic impacts, trends, and statistics Market trends and marketing issues Product trends and product development issues Human resources trends and management

Table 5. Use of Tools Training Frequency (M) 2.15 2.08 2.17 2.58 2.48 2.85 3.08 2.85 3.15

Note: Frequency ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time).

planning, a specialized planning unit was available in most countries (10 of 13), with a small number of staff (mean of 8), the majority holding a university degree. Training in areas that could support both the effective operation of a strategic planning system and the integration of sustainability is generally poor (Table 4). The commitment of the management team to both strategic planning and sustainability was generally rated above average (with means of 3.96 and 3.46, respectively). However, one must consider the possibility of some bias involved in self-reporting, given that the participants belonged to the middle or top management level. Their understanding of sustainable tourism development and the ways to achieve it, as discussed above, indicates that there is a considerable margin for improvement in operationalizing the term and integrating it effectively into the strategic planning system. Furthermore, the tools most frequently used in tourism planning proved to be traditional strategic instruments such as cost–benefit analyses and feasibility studies. Useful sustainability tools such as carrying-capacity studies, forecasting and trend analyses, impact assessment studies, and sustainability indicators seem to be used by about half of the countries participating in the research (Table 5). It remains to be examined, however, how these instruments are used and if they are effective in integrating sustainability into the strategic planning process. Low attention was observed on a number of other strategic tools such as scenario, life-cycle, and risk analyses that could prove useful in the examination of alternative strategies for the sustainable development of tourism. The assessment of functional integration indicated that more importance is attributed to the traditional management functions (Table 6). Areas related to the integration of sustainability, such as environmental, social, cultural, and technological issues, do not seem to be equally addressed. Similar results were produced by the assessment of the orientation of

Tools Cost–benefit analysis Feasibility studies Carrying-capacity studies Forecasting and trend analysis Indicators of sustainability Environmental impact assessment Strategic environmental impact assessment Stakeholder analysis Value-based planning Sustainability impact assessment Environmental audit Scenario analysis Coastal zone management Life-cycle analysis Risk analysis and management Zero-base budgeting Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Project management techniques

Usage (No. of Countries) 10 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1

Table 6. Functional Integration Functions Marketing Product development Human resources Economics and finance Computers and MIS Legislation and regulation Environmental management Cultural and social

Coverage (M) 4.08 3.69 3.38 3.85 3.00 3.77 3.15 3.46

Note: Level of coverage ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (very high). MIS = management information systems.

the system that also tended to attribute less importance to these issues (Table 7). The research identified a low level of involvement in the strategic planning process and a very hierarchical top–down system with the emphasis placed on the role of the political leadership and top management of the organization (Table 8). Tourism partners from various sectors and levels as well as nonmanagement staff are less involved in the process. The research also revealed the frequent use of consultants by a large number of NTOs. A considerable scope for more use of methods and practices to enhance participation and information exchange was also identified.

Research Limitations A number of research limitations were taken into account in data analysis and interpretation.

201

Soteriou and Coccossis Table 7. Internal and External Orientation Areas Internal orientation Destination capabilities and strengths Destination weaknesses and problems Past performance Reasons for past failures External orientation Worldwide competitive trends Market developments and trends Customer and end-user preferences Economic issues and trends Environment issues and trends Social and cultural issues and trends Legal and regulatory issues Political developments Technological trends

Discussion and Conclusions Level of Attention (M) 3.83 4.08 4.00 3.54 3.69 3.74 3.77 4.08 4.00 4.08 3.54 3.38 3.69 3.85 3.23

Note: Level of attention ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (very high).

Table 8. Involvement in the Strategic Planning Process

Involvement (M) Rank

Top management of the organization Minister responsible for tourism Planning staff of the organization Middle managers of the organization External consultants Private sector representatives Supervisors of the organization Public sector organizations Regional and local authorities Nongovernmental organizations Nonmanagerial staff of the organization

4.54   1 4.23   2 3.80   3 3.69   4 3.69 – 3.31   6 3.31 – 3.15   8 3.00   9 2.92 10 2.38 11

Note: Level of involvement ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (very high).

1. The small sample restricted data processing to basic statistical and descriptive analyses. It did not permit correlation analysis of factors with CIS and the establishment of relationships. 2. The e-mail survey did not allow for any clarifying questions from participants or further probing by the researchers. This was a considerable limitation given the level of difficulty of the questionnaire and the concepts investigated, as well as language and cultural barriers. However, the level of completeness in the responses secured indicated a high level of understanding of the issues involved on the part of the participants. 3. The research investigated the planning practices of countries, the participating organizations are responsible for national tourism planning, and the respondents are managerial staff in these organizations. These factors might have impaired the objectivity of the responses and the acknowledgement of planning deficiencies.

This research can help NTO managers as well as researchers build on their understanding of strategic planning practices in NTOs and their efforts to integrate sustainability therein. It reveals the contribution that strategic planning can make toward sustainable tourism and the conditions restraining it. It provides a framework for the conceptualization and study of a capability for integrating sustainable tourism into the strategic planning system of NTOs and factors that influence it. It suggests practical ways to improve performance in strategic planning and its use in the pursuit of sustainability of tourism at a national level. The implications of the findings for both management and academia are discussed in detail below. The research revealed a number of problems restraining the operation of a strategic planning system in NTOs and the integration of sustainability. In light of these findings, questions might be raised as to whether the NTOs should in fact invest in strategic planning and the development of a capability for the integration of sustainability into the system. The fragmented, multidisciplinary, and political nature of tourism and the holistic ambitions of sustainable tourism development demand that only governments and public authorities can coordinate efforts in sustainable tourism policy (Bramwell 2005; Farsari, Butler, and Prastacos 2007; Inskeep 1991; Prindham 1999). It is not surprising, therefore, that in a two-round Delphi survey conducted into expert opinion (Miller 2001), the national government was perceived to be primarily responsible among tourism stakeholders for taking steps toward sustainable development. It was expected to lead, support, and guide the other stakeholders, stimulate involvement, and mediate in addition to its regulating and legislative role. In this context, the drafting and implementation of a strategy for sustainable tourism development involving all tourism partners acquires increased importance. The participants in the research are generally unanimous as to the significant contribution that strategic planning could make toward sustainable development. At the same time a wide scope for improvement is identified on various factors that lie within the sphere of management influence and could, as suggested in the literature, affect the ability of organizations to successfully operate a strategic planning system and integrate sustainability therein. The research indicated that a number of interventions need to be made in this respect. The strategic planning process does not appear to be applied in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner. Vital steps that can contribute to the effectiveness of the process and the integration of sustainability (such as environmental scanning, the appraisal and selection of strategies, implementation, and monitoring) need to be addressed more thoroughly. Sustainability rather than being more of a policy statement, considered and mentioned mostly during the formulation of vision and goals, needs to be practically addressed at all stages of strategic planning. For example, during

202 environmental scanning, management can further examine through the use of tools such as sustainability indicators, carrying capacity and impact assessment studies, less traditional areas like the state and limits of the physical, cultural, and social environment, as well as eminent risks and tourism pressures. During the appraisal and selection of strategies, sustainability criteria and tools can be used to select the most sustainable course of action. Management can devote more resources in the training and development of all parties involved in the planning process on both strategic planning and sustainable tourism development, recognizing the inherent difficulty of these topics and the need to remain abreast with latest developments and innovations. It can also invest in rationalizing the process as much as possible and integrating functions that can assist in addressing sustainability more effectively, such as environmental, cultural, and social management. Management can also make more use of tools and techniques that can assist in the integration of sustainability as opposed to the more traditional tools and techniques that seem to receive the most attention. Various tools such as carrying-capacity studies, sustainability indicators, impact assessment studies, scenario, risk, life-cycle, and stakeholder analyses can prove very useful provided they become an integral part of the strategic planning process. A large scope for improvement has also been identified in the involvement of tourism partners and industry in the strategic planning process as well as of lower levels of management and personnel. The research pointed toward the need for developing less hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations that encourage communication and participation in planning and decision making. It revealed the importance of effective leadership committed to the principles and practices of both strategic planning and sustainability—one that encourages new input and innovation, information exchange, and participation and that demonstrates an ability to implement and control. NTOs can make further use of information exchange and participation methods to actively involve tourism stakeholders from both public and private sectors and at different levels in the strategic planning effort. Page and Thorn (1997) stress the importance of a balance of private and public sector involvement in tourism planning to secure sustainable tourism development. Such balance is considered invaluable in the pursuit of a harmonious relationship between the economic, ecological, and sociocultural dimensions of tourism development. Although the research concentrated on factors that lie within managerial control, it underlined the importance of exogenous factors such as political influence and interventions, different orientations and prioritization between the private and public sectors, conflict of interests, limited cooperation between partners, ineffectiveness in regulating and controlling development, and lack of statistical and other

Journal of Travel Research 49(2) information to support the spherical evaluation of tourism impacts. This unfavorable external environment could be undermining the comprehensiveness in the NTO strategic planning process and impairing its ability to integrate sustainability effectively. As Wechsler and Backoff (1987) indicate, the status of the planning system might be the resulting equilibrium of prevailing powers in the internal and external environment of the organization. NTOs need to work closely with their tourism partners in both public and private sectors and at various levels with the objective of developing a favorable political climate for the development and implementation of a tourism strategy that promotes sustainability. Increasing the level of communication, involvement, and training of tourism partners could assist in creating a more supportive environment for the effective operation of the strategic planning system and the integration of sustainability. Furthermore, the development of an overall orientation toward sustainability and the drafting of a national integrated strategy for sustainable development covering the tourism sector as well could support the effort for the development and implementation of a tourism strategy for sustainable development. The NTOs can cooperate closely with the responsible governmental bodies toward this end. The research revealed considerable scope for improvement for the operationalization of sustainability in tourism. Although most established definitions of sustainable tourism development were recognized, the methods of how to achieve it were not equally acknowledged, in a similar manner observed in the results of prior research (Miller 2001). This finding supports criticism that sustainable tourism still remains largely a theoretical concept. Research that will enable the NTOs and industry to give a more concrete meaning to sustainable tourism development and assess the use of tools that can help to operationalize the concept is considered of utmost importance. The research also unveiled the comparatively low importance attributed to the concept of social equity. This is not surprising considering that the environmental dimension of sustainability is the one that “has dominated in the debates about both sustainable development and sustainable tourism” (Swarbrooke 1999, p. 11). However, the equitable distribution of benefits and costs among the multiple stakeholders in tourism is an important dimension of sustainable tourism development that should be duly addressed. Increasing participation in the strategic planning process for a spherical examination of all perspectives in strategy selection is a vital step toward this end. Furthermore, the rationalization of the process and the use of tools and techniques to effectively address all dimensions of sustainable tourism development can also contribute substantially. The low importance attributed to addressing local concerns and recognizing the interdependencies of tourism with other sectors also stresses the need for wider participation and the use of appropriate competencies and tools

Soteriou and Coccossis in the strategic planning process. Furthermore, the drafting of a national sustainable development strategy can provide the necessary framework in which the interdependencies between the various economic sectors can be properly addressed. The complexity of the issues investigated and the limited available research indicate that we have merely seen the tip of the iceberg in this area. Strategic planning for tourism at a national level is a research area with wide investigation possibilities. An empirical research of wider scope covering more organizations and groups involved in the planning process would allow for more in-depth analysis of the strategic planning practices used for tourism at a national level. This article has provided a framework for the definition of the concept of a capability for the integration of sustainability into strategic planning (CIS) and factors that could contribute to its development (Figure 2). Further empirical work on CIS is deemed necessary to test its parameters and assess the factors that influence it. Although the examination of many variables poses a huge research challenge, the results of the empirical research undertaken seem to confirm the position that research on strategic planning will give very controversial results should a single variable be examined in isolation and other important variables within or outside the organization be ignored (Miller and Friesen 1983). Results stress the need to adopt a systemic and a contingency approach in researching the strategic planning process in the complex tourism system and examine a multitude of key variables and their interrelations and impacts (Soteriou and Roberts 1998). Lastly, the perceptions of sustainable tourism development and the way they impact the strategic planning system and the integration of sustainability therein is yet another challenging research area. The empirical research supported the conclusion of McCool, Moisey, and Nickerson (2001) that much more research is needed on the perceptions of sustainability among the various partners in tourism. It would be interesting to further explore the meanings attributed to sustainable tourism by the tourism partners, the parameters that are stressed, and how these affect CIS. References Amit, R., and P. Schoemaker (1993). “Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent.” Strategic Management Journal, 14: 33-46. Andrews, K. R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strategy: An Analytical Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill. Athiyaman, A. (1995). “The Interface of Tourism & Strategy Research: An Analysis.” Tourism Management, 16 (6): 447-53. Banerjee, S. B. (2002). “Organisational Strategies for Sustainable Development: Developing a Research Agenda for the New Millennium.” Australian Journal of Management, 27 (2): 105-18.

203 Bourgeois, L. J. (1980). “Strategy and Environment: A Conceptual Integration.” Academy of Management Review, 5 (1): 25-39. Bramwell, B. (2005). “Interventions and Policy Instruments for Sustainable Tourism.” In Global Tourism, 3rd ed., edited by W. F. Theobald. London: Elsevier, pp. 406-25. Bramwell, B., and I. Henry (1996). “A Framework for Understanding Sustainable Tourism Management.” In Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice, edited by B. Bramwell, I. Henry, G. Jackson, A. G. Prat, G. Richards, and J. van der Straaten. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Bryson, J. M., and W. D. Roering (1987). “Applying Private-Sector Strategic Planning in the Public Sector.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (1): 9-22. Butler, R. W. (1999). “Sustainable Tourism—A State of Art Review.” Tourism Geographies, 1: 7-25. Calingo, L. M. R. (1989). “Achieving Excellence in Strategic Planning Systems.” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 54 (2): 21-23. Camillus, J. C., and D. K. Datta (1991). “Managing Strategic Issues in a Turbulent Environment.” Long-Range Planning, 24 (2): 67-74. Chamberlain, N. (1968). Enterprise and Environment: The Firm in Time and Place. New York: McGraw-Hill. Choy, D. J. L. (1993). “Alternative Roles of National Tourism Organizations.” Tourism Management, 14 (5): 357-65. Clarke, J. (1997). “A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5: 224-33. Coccossis, H. (1996). “Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implications.” In Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences, edited by G. K. Priestley, J. A. Edwards, and H. Coccossis. London: CABI Publishing. Coccossis, H., and P. Tsartas (2001). Βιώσιμη Τουριστική Ανάπτυξη και Περιβάλλον [Sustainable Tourism Development and the Environment]. Athens: Kritiki. Cooper, C., J. Fletcher, D. Gilbert, S. Wanhill, and R. Shepherd (Eds.) (1998). Tourism: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dredge, D., and S. Moore (1992). “A Methodology for the Integration of Tourism in Town Planning.” Journal of Tourism Studies, 3 (1): 8-21. Drucker, P. (1964). The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Brothers. Dutton, I, and M. C. Hall (1989). “Making Tourism Sustainable: The Policy/Practice Conundrum.” Proceedings of the Environment Institute of Australia Second National Conference, October 9-11, Melbourne, Australia. Eber, S. (Ed.) (1992). Beyond the Green Horizon: A Discussion Paper on Principles for Sustainable Tourism. London: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Tourism Concern. Farrell, A., and M. Hart (1998). “What Does Sustainability Really Mean? The Search for Useful Indicators.” Environment, 40 (9): 4-9, 26-31. Farsari, Y., R. Butler, and P. Prastacos (2007). “Sustainable Tourism Policy for Mediterranean Destinations: Issues and Interrelation­ ships.” International Tourism Policy, 1 (1): 103-21.

204 Fyall, A., and B. Garrod (1997). “Sustainable Tourism: Towards a Methodology for Implementing the Concept.” In Tourism and Sustainability: Principles to Practice, edited by M. J. Stabler. New York: CABI Publishing. Gilbert, D. C., and R. Kapur (1990). “Strategic Marketing Planning and the Hotel Industry.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 9 (1): 27-43. Ginter, P. M., A. C. Rucks, and W. J. Duncan (1989). “Characteristics of Strategic Planning in Selected Service Industries and Planner Satisfaction with the Process.” Management International Review, 29 (1): 66-74. Hambrick, D. C., and S. Finkelstein (1987). “Managerial Direction: A Bridge between Polar Views of Organizational Outcomes.” Organisation Behavior, 9: 369-406. Hassan, S. S. (2000). “Determinants of Market Competitiveness in an Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Industry.” Journal of Travel Research, 38 (3): 239-45. Holden, M. (2001). “Uses and Abuses of Urban Sustainability Indicator Studies.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 10 (2): 217-36. Holmberg, J. (1998). “Backcasting: A Natural Step in Operationalising Sustainable Development.” Greener Management International, 23: 30-52. Hunter, C. (1997). “Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (4): 850-67. Ioannides, D. (2001). “Sustainable Development and the Shifting of Tourism Stakeholders: Towards a Dynamic Framework. In Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability, edited by S. F. McCool and R. N. Moisey. New York: CABI Publishing. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2002). Beyond Delusion: A Science and a Policy Dialogue on Designing Effective Indicators for Sustainable Development. Workshop Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: IISD. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (1996). Bellagio Principles. New York: Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. Javidan, M. (1984). “Organizational versus Environmental Sources of Influence in Strategic Decision-Making.” Strategic Management Journal, 2: 77-89. Jeffries, D. (2001). Governments and Tourism. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Judge, W. Q., and T. J. Douglas (1998). “Performance Implications of Incorporating Natural Environmental Issues into the Strategic Planning Process: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Management Studies, 35 (2): 242-62. Kaufman J. L., and H. M. Jacobs (1987). “A Public Planning Perspective on Strategic Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (1): 23-33. Lanzarote World Conference (1995). Charter of Sustainable Tourism. http://www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/doc/Lanz-en.pdf (accessed November 10, 2006).

Journal of Travel Research 49(2) Lennon, J., H. Smith, N. Cockerell, and J. Trew (2006). Benchmarking National Tourism Organisations and Agencies: Understanding Best Performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lenz, R. T. (1980). “Strategic Capability: A Concept and Framework for Analysis.” Academy of Management Review, 5 (2): 225-34. Lenz, R. T., and M. A. Lyles (1981). “Tackling the Human Problems in Planning.” Long Range Planning, 14 (2): 72-77. McCool, S. F., N. Moisey, and N. P. Nickerson (2001). “What Should Tourism Sustain? The Disconnect with Industry Perceptions of Useful Indicators.” Journal of Travel Research, 40: 124-31. Mill, R. C., and A. M. Morrison (1985). The Tourism System. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Miller, G. (2001). “The Development of Indicators for Sustainable Tourism: Results of a Delphi Survey of Tourism Researchers.” Tourism Management, 22: 351-62. Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen (1983). “Strategy-Makings and Environment: The Third Link.” Strategic Management Journal, 4: 221-35. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Free Press. Olsen, J. B., and D. C. Eadie (1982). The Game Plan: Governance with Foresight. Washington, DC: Council of State Planning Agencies. Page, S. J., and K. J. Thorn (1997). “Towards Sustainable Tourism Planning in New Zealand: Public Sector Planning Responses.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5 (1): 59-77. Phillips, P. A., and L. Moutinho (1998). Strategic Planning Systems in Hospitality and Tourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Prindham, G. (1999). “Towards Sustainable Tourism in the Mediterranean? Policy and Practice in Italy, Spain and Greece.” Environmental Politics, 8 (2): 97-116. Ramanujam, V., and N. Venkatraman (1987). “Planning System Characteristics and Planning Effectiveness.” Strategic Management Journal, 8: 453-68. Ramanujam, V., N. Venkatraman, and J. Camillus (1986). “MultiObjective Assessment of Effectiveness of Strategic Planning: A Discriminant Analysis Approach.” Academy of Management Journal, 16: 347-72. Reid, D. M. (1989). “Operationalizing Strategic Planning.” Strategic Management Journal, 10: 553-67. Rhyne, L. C. (1985). “The Relationship of Information Usage Characteristics to Planning System Sophistication: An Empirical Examination.” Strategic Management Journal, 6: 319-37. Ruhanen, L. (2004). “Strategic Planning for Local Tourism Destinations: An Analysis of Tourism Plans.” Tourism and Hospitality: Planning and Development, 1 (3): 239-53. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper & Row. Sharpley, R. (2002). “Rural Tourism and the Challenge of Tourism Diversification: The Case of Cyprus.” Tourism Management, 23: 233-44. Simpson, K. (2001). “Strategic Planning and Community Involvement as Contributors to Sustainable Tourism Development.” Current Issues in Tourism, 4 (1): 3-41.

205

Soteriou and Coccossis Soteriou, E. C. (2007). “ Ένταξη της Αειφορίας στο Στρατηγικό Σχεδιασμό Τουριστικών Προορισμών” [The Integration of Sustainability in the Strategic Planning of Tourism Destinations]. Doctoral diss., University of Thessaly. Soteriou, E. C., and C. Roberts (1998). “The Strategic Planning Process in National Tourism Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 37 (1): 21-29. Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. New York: CABI Publishing. Taylor, G. D. (1994). “Research in National Tourism Organizations.” In Travel and Tourism Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers, edited by J. R. B. Ritchie and C. R. Goeldner. New York: John Wiley. Tourism Sustainability Group (2007). Action for More Sustainable European Tourism. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Turner, B. L. (1997). “The Sustainability Principle in Global Agendas: Implications for Understanding Land-Use/Cover Change.” The Geographical Journal, 163 (2): 133-40. Turner, J. (1994). Natural Neighbour. BBC TV, October 22, 1994. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2005). Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers. Madrid, Spain: WTO. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (2002). World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/ WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm (accessed December 20, 2006). Uyterhoeven, H., R. Ackerman, and J. Rosenblum (1973). Strategy and Organization: Text and Cases in General Management.” Homewood, IL: Irwin. Venkatraman, N., and J. C. Camillus (1984). “Exploring the Concept of ‘Fit’ in Strategy Research.” Academy of Management Review, 9: 513-25.

Venkatraman, N., and J. E. Prescott (1990). “Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test of Its Performance Implications.” Strategic Management Journal, 11: 1-23. Wechsler, B., and R. W. Backoff (1987). “The Dynamics of Strategy in Public Organizations.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (1): 34-43. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1979). Role and Structure of National Tourism Administrations. Madrid, Spain: WTO. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1993). Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners. Madrid, Spain: WTO. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (1997). Towards New Forms of Public-Private Sector Partnership: The Changing Role, Structure and Activities of National Tourism Administrations. Madrid, Spain: WTO. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2004). Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations—A Guidebook. Madrid, Spain: WTO. World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2006). Structures and Budgets of National Tourism Organizations 2004-2005. Madrid, Spain: WTO. World Tourism Organization (WTO), World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC), and Earth Council (1996). Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. London: WTTC.

Bios Evi C. Soteriou is a tourist officer A’ with the Cyprus Tourism Organisation in Nicosia, Cyprus. She earned her PhD from the department of planning and regional development at the University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece. Harris Coccossis is a professor in the department of planning and regional development at the University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece.