0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
16 Ansichten10 Seiten
Tourism essentially functions as a chaotic, non-linear, non-deterministic system. Existing tourism models fail to explain fully the complex relationships that exist between and among the various elements that constitute a tourism system. This paper proposes an alternative model of tourism based on the principles of chaos theory.
Tourism essentially functions as a chaotic, non-linear, non-deterministic system. Existing tourism models fail to explain fully the complex relationships that exist between and among the various elements that constitute a tourism system. This paper proposes an alternative model of tourism based on the principles of chaos theory.
Tourism essentially functions as a chaotic, non-linear, non-deterministic system. Existing tourism models fail to explain fully the complex relationships that exist between and among the various elements that constitute a tourism system. This paper proposes an alternative model of tourism based on the principles of chaos theory.
Bob McKercher Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong Received 8 July 1998; accepted 1 December 1998 Abstract Chaos theory and its companion model, complexity theory, are emerging as legitimate schools of thought to describe how complex systems function. This paper argues that tourism essentially functions as a chaotic, non-linear, non-deterministic system. As such, existing tourism models fail to explain fully the complex relationships that exist between and among the various elements that constitute a tourism system. The paper concludes by proposing an alternative model of tourism based on the principles of chaos theory that incorporates the nine elements that combine to explain how tourism functions. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Chaos theory; Complexity; Tourism models; Systems 1. Introduction In recent years, chaos theory and its cousin, complex- ity theory, have made strong inroads into management disciplines, most notably in the areas of marketing (Pais- ley, 1993; Winsor, 1995), risk management (Burlando, 1994), health care (Flower, 1993), general management (Crossman et al., 1996; van de Vliet, 1994; Vinten, 1992) and organisational management (Spencer, 1995). To a large extent, though, chaos theory has not been exam- ined in the context of tourism, even though as this paper will argue, tourism is an inherently non-linear, complex and dynamic system that is well described within the chaos paradigm. Apart from papers by Faulkner and Russell (1997) initiating the conceptual discussion on chaos and complexity in tourism and work by Parry and Drost (1995) asking if chaos was good for hospitality business pro"ts, few tourism academics have explored this issue. The lack of interest in chaos theory in tourism is symptomatic of a larger malaise that has a!ected much of the intellectual development of tourism over the past few years. With the exception of a post-modernist examina- tion of tourism, emanating from Europe, there has been remarkably little conceptual discussion about the organ- isation and structure of tourism and tourism systems during the 1990s. It is ironic that during a period that has seen an exponential growth in the number of tourism journals, the intellectual discourse about what tourism is and how it functions seems to have ebbed. The conse- quence is that much critical thought about tourism re- mains entrenched in an intellectual time warp that is up to 30 years old. This paper proposes a new model of the organisation of tourism, based on chaos and complexity theory. It will argue that tourism functions according to the principles of non-linearity, in a manner that is similar to a self- organising living community, and that it operates in an inherently complex and chaotic manner. Models de- veloped before chaos theory recognise the complex na- ture of the tourism &system' but fail to appreciate the chaotic nature of tourism systems. The paper begins by reviewing brie#y the existing tourism models and dis- cussing their collective conceptual weaknesses. It then reviews the key concepts of chaos theory before propos- ing a chaos model of tourism. 2. Existing tourism models A number of tourism models have been developed that have tried to explain how tourism works. It is important to understand that models are simpli"ed views of reality that strive to explain how certain features, relationships or processes work. They do not try to mirror reality precisely. Most tourism models recognise the complex nature of tourism and the inter-relatedness of di!erent components of tourism. To a large extent, they all argue 0261-5177/99/$- see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 4 a reductionist approach to tourism. Pearce (1989) in his seminal work, for example, discusses how one can under- stand how tourism works by dis-aggregating it into its component parts, identifying the relationships and then re-aggregating it. He argues that the whole of tourism is equal to the sum of its parts. Mill and Morrison (1985) show the tourism system as a closed system that consists of four inter-connected parts } Market, Travel, Destination and Marketing. An understanding of tourism comes from an understanding of di!erent models that drive each of the components. For instance, Mill and Morrison argue that the market can be best understood through the use of a consumer behaviour model and that a regulatory framework model is the most appropriate method of understanding the destination. McIntosh and Goeldner (1995) discuss the array of approaches used to study tourism, ranging from a geographic, to a product approach, an economic approach and a sociological approach, among others. They conclude that a systems approach is needed, de"n- ing a system as a set of inter-related groups coordinated to form a uni"ed whole and organised to accomplish a set of goals. Gunn (1979) adopts a land use planning model and treats tourism as any planner would treat any other land use. Murphy (1985) is one of the few scholars who uses a living ecosystem analogy to examine the relationship between tourists and host communities. However, his model does not attempt to explain how tourism functions, simply how it relates to its host community. Perhaps the existing model that comes closest to ac- knowledging the complexities of tourism is Neil Leiper's much misunderstood &Tourism Systems' model (Leiper, 1990). The use of the plural of the word &system' is intentional for he argues that tourism systems function at a personal level, with each tourist operating within his or her own tourism system. Thus, for example, the four million overseas visitors who came to Australia in 1997 operated in four million discrete tourism systems that may have shared certain common elements, but otherwise remained individual. Each of these models argues explicitly, or implies strongly that: 1. tourism can be controlled; 2. disparate tourism players function in a formally, coor- dinated manner to form a uni"ed whole; 3. tourism is organised and that the organisation can be controlled by a top down management approach; 4. individual tourism business function to achieve a set of common, mutually agreed upon goals; 5. tourism is the sum of its constituent parts, and 6. by understanding how each part works, an under- standing of howtourismworks as a whole will emerge. The greatest strength of these models is that they are all written from the perspective of an overarching public sector tourism organisation that is charged with develop- ing tourismaccording to a plan. As such, they have utility for governmental and quasi-governmental sector tourism organisations and academics. Implicit in all of these models is the assumption that tourism is a linear, deter- ministic activity, whose orderly development can be con- trolled from above by &planners'. These models try to reinforce the belief that tourism is predictable and that control over tourism is both possible and desirable, while a loss of control poses a threat to desired tourism out- comes. They argue that the failure of the top down planners to control tourism is a function of a lack of data and the failure to dissect and analyse all the inter-rela- tionships between tourism's component parts, rather than as an inherent function of how tourism works. With such information, tourism should be able to function as a machine according to traditional Newtonian physics. Such an attitude is re#ected in a recent World Tourism Organisation document stating that tourism must be developed and managed in a controlled, and sustainable manner, based on sound planning (WTO, 1994). Yet, history shows that most tourism plans do not work. Both the popular and academic tourism literature are replete with accounts of adverse social, cultural and environmental impacts, calls for the need to control ram- pant tourismdevelopment, stories of the undesired e!ects of spontaneous development and the "nancial troubles many tourism organisations face. Indeed, one of the common themes in the tourism literature is how to con- trol the genie of tourism once it is let out of the bottle. If the traditional models explained tourism fully, then they should also o!er insights into controlling tourism. But none does. The reason is that tourism is simply too complex to be captured e!ectively in a deterministic model. 2.1. Dexciencies of existing models By design, the existing models are selective in which elements of tourism they include and which disciplinary issues relating to tourism they strive to explain. With few exceptions, they tend to focus narrowly on selected desti- nation variables or on a simple relationship between markets and a destination. Even within a destination area, the models fail to appreciate the independent and highly competitive nature of tourism businesses and the complex interrelationships that exist between and among these organisations. Simultaneously, any tourism busi- ness must both coexist and compete "ercely with other businesses to survive. This task is made all the more di$cult because most tourism businesses are indepen- dent and, therefore, will act in an independent way, doing "rst what is in their own best interests and secondarily what is in the best interests of the community in which they exist. In all the years the author has worked in and studied tourism, he has yet to come across an operator 426 B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 who says &&yes, I am the problem, and for the good of the industry, I will leave the business.'' The models further fail to re#ect fully the dynamical nature of tourism with literally hundreds or thousands of businesses entering and exiting the marketplace, chang- ing ownership or repositioning themselves radically each year. The reason is that the models tend to focus on the stability of systems, or orderly linear change in systems and the central tendency of populations. As such, they divert attention away from the periphery of systems, where change is most likely to be initiated. The models, thus, cannot accommodate the ongoing turbulence that is inherent even in mature, &stable' tourism communities. They certainly cannot predict or explain the periods of incredible upheaval that seem to shake tourism systems to their very core, yet at the same time, allow them to re-emerge in an even more competitive manner. Nor, can they accommodate the actions of rogues who can plunge seemingly stable systems into chaos. Yet rogues appear to be playing an integral role in the development of destinations. Indeed, the de"ning moment in most tourism destinations can be attributed to the actions of rogues who actualised its tourism potential. Importantly, there is little evidence of an organised tourism sector. In Australia, for example, one Common- wealth Government, six States, two Territories and over 700 local governments are involved in the tourism at some level. Each works "rst for its best commercial or political interests. Often these parochial interests are at odds with the best interests of other jurisdictions above or below them. Further, the high turnover rate among local government tourism sta!, coupled with the gener- ally low skills levels among such sta! (McKercher & Ritchie, 1997) mitigate against achieving a coordinated development approach to tourism. In addition, tourism planning at an operational level is a myth. Media reports in Australia indicate that more than 70% of the recent tourist developments proceeded without the completion of detailed feasibility studies (Winkler, 1998). The same situation occurs in other jurisdictions, with the possible exception of the rapidly disappearing centrally controlled government systems. However, it is patently evident that within this appar- ent chaos, tourism does operate with some semblance of order. People "nd information about destinations, or- ganise trips, travel to, stay at and return from destina- tions on a daily basis. A complex array of elements, including public sector bodies, the travel trade, the trans- port sector, accommodation houses, attractions, activ- ities and amenities self-organise to satisfy the needs of the travelling public. And so, it is equally incorrect to suggest that tourism functions in an anarchic manner, devoid of any form or order. In short, at their heart, the models do not appreciate that tourism operates in a non-linear manner. It is the inherent non-linearity of tourism that makes it extremely di$cult to showa direct cause and e!ect between actions, as any detailed examination of visitor arrival "gures will attest. Tourist #ows are dependent on a variety of factors relating to the continued attractiveness of the destination (access, price, changing consumer taste, marketing, etc.), factors speci"c to the originating region (social, eco- nomic, political, etc.) and the interest shown in that market by alternative destinations. The failure to show a linear relationship between marketing input and tourist arrivals is one of the greatest challenges for public sector tourism marketing organisations. While they can accu- rately document the number of hits on an Internet site, the number of telephone or written inquiries and even the number of visits to a promotional booth, they cannot tell exactly how many people visited a destination as a result of their activities. By the same token, the complex array of interactions that occur between and among the various elements of tourismaccentuate the non-linearity of tourism relations. In fact, tourism destinations function in a manner that is akin to an ecological community, with a clearly de"ned hierarchy of dominant and subservient players and clear inter-relationships between entities. Just as the overall survival of an ecological community is dependent on the survival of keystone species, so too is the overall survival of a tourism community dependent on its keystone spe- cies, in this case the primary attractions that motivate visitation and the transport links that facilitate access. All other tourism activity revolves around these features, including the demand for accommodation, secondary attractions, amenities, services, shopping, other activities, improved access, and the interest in the travel trade to bring tourists to the area. No matter how robust the rest of a regional tourism sector may be, if its primary attrac- tions lose favour with the travelling public or if the transport sector abandons it, the entire destination su!ers. Finally, none of the existing models acknowledges the power dynamics that in#uence the development of tourism. Power can be exerted at either a political or commercial level, with the more powerful player trying to in#uence the direction of growth for its own bene"ts. Keystone species, multi-national organisations and gov- ernment agencies generally exert a disproportionate amount of in#uence over tourism destinations. Indeed some players, most notably the airline sector, have the ability to in#uence directly the health of a destination through the decisions they make, which may have little bearing on the destination's ability to cater for the needs of tourists. By the same token, smaller players can exert signi"cant power over the politics of tourism through the actions of their sector speci"c trade associations. As a former executive director of a very e!ective regional trade association in Canada, the author can attest to the considerable in#uence such associations can have on governments, especially as elections approach. B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 427 3. A chaos oriented tourism community model Newtonian physics argues that the universe operates as a perfect machine. Models based on Newtonian phys- ics have tried to explain systems in a machine-like man- ner. To understand how the machine worked, all one had to do was to reduce it to its constituent parts, examine how each functioned and where each "t into the whole and then reassemble the machine. This linear view of the world asserted that any system was the sum of its constituent parts (Faulkner & Russell, 1997) and providing that enough information could be gathered, anything could be explained in precise, predictable and reproducible terms. Chaos theory, and its companion model, complexity (Lewin, 1993) emerged from the realisation that many systems operated in a complex, non-linear, non-probabil- istic, non-deterministic and dynamic systems manner and not as a machine (Gleick, 1987; Kellert, 1993 as per Overman, 1996). Instead of operating in a machine-like manner, these systems have been likened to living sys- tems where a vast number of elements form an array of rich, subtle, complex and varied relationships (Klomp & Green, 1997). At "rst glance, relationships in such systems may appear to be haphazard and random, but at a deeper level recognisable patterns emerge that help explain the functioning of the system as a whole (Parry & Drost, 1995). Because the relationships are open and so complex and because this complexity engenders an innate level of instability, it is extremely di$cult to predict accurately the future movement of the system. Just as one cannot understand how a wetland ecosys- tem functions by identifying all the living species within that wetland and understanding their biological pro- cesses, one cannot understand how a tourism system functions by reducing it to its component parts and trying to understand how each works. There are a num- ber of weaknesses with such an assumption. The "rst is the de"nitional problem of what tourism is and what elements constitute tourism. Tourism is not an &industry' per se. Instead, it is de"ned by the activities of a type of consumer that involves visitors buying many commodi- ties that may only be partly reliant on tourists for their survival (Anon, 1998). Businesses that serve the needs of tourists may derive some or most of their income from non-tourism activities. As such, any attempt to de"ne and categorise tourism players precisely risks either in- cluding elements that are not warranted, or excluding those worthy of consideration. Other problems lie in the challenge of trying to under- stand the vast array of rich and subtle relationships that exist within a tourism community. Further, tourism rep- resents an open system, where the vitality of a destination area can be in#uenced as much by external events as by internal events. Understanding how a hotel works will not explain how the Asian Currency Crisis has caused a downturn in tourism. To the uninitiated, chaos implies a complete lack of order. In fact, while each element of the system may seem to act in an independent manner, collectively the entire system functions in an orderly manner that is governed by a number of underlying principles. In this manner a form of spontaneous order emerges (Lewin, 1993). This seeming incongruity of order out of chaos is explained by the concept of the Strange Attractor. In business, strange attractors have been likened to a common vision, sense of meaning, strategy or value system that drives people to achieve a common goal (Svyantek & DeShon, 1993; Covey, 1994). As a result, the system will manage itself, often in an unknowing manner, towards a common goal. But because the system is non-probabilistic, because the relationships between elements are so rich, and because the system is open to external stimuli, it is impossible to predict accurately the future position of the system over time. Instead, the rules will dictate where the system is likely to move, within broad parameters. Chaos further implies a loss of control which becomes threatening to any individual or organisation whose task is to try to control the uncontrollable. To some extent this is true, and a plunge into chaos can be frightening for many players. But chaos realises that periods of instabil- ity are intrinsic to the operation of and essential for change to complex systems (Ditto & Manukata, 1995). Indeed, a feature of large, interactive, dynamical systems is that they evolve naturally toward the edge of chaos (Lewin, 1993). Chaotic systems evolve abruptly from one state to another, rather than evolving slowly between the two states. Because complex systems are self-organising (or bottom up organising) systems, they have tremendous adaptive ability. It has been observed that &&living sys- tems, when confronted with change have the capacity to fall apart so that they can reorganise themselves to be better adapted to their current environment. We always knew that things fell apart; we didn't know that organ- isms have the capacity to re-organise, to self organise... But you can't self organise, you can't transform... unless you are willing to move into that place'' (Flower, 1993). While individuals within the system may be adversely a!ected by abrupt change, others will bene"t, and, im- portantly, the system as a whole will continue to operate, although possibly in quite a radically di!erent manner. Small dinosaurs can learn to #y! Chaotic systems display a number of other inter- related features. The "rst is a sensitivity to initial conditions, where small changes in the early stages of a development can produce profoundly di!erent outcomes. The so-called butter#y e!ect, or more appro- priately named Sensitive Dependence on Initial Condi- tions (SDIC) e!ect states that errors grow exponentially over time. As a result, a small change in initial conditions may accentuate the errors, producing a result that could 428 B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 not be envisioned. The second feature is the law of in- creasing returns, or the realisation that success feeds on success. Destinations that achieve a level of success are more likely to become more attractive to both consumers and investors, which in turn, engenders even more inter- est in the destination area. Paradoxically, while change and phase shift are in- herent elements of a chaotic system, chaos theory also recognises that certain innovations in the past can have a lasting e!ect despite changes in the conditions that originally made them necessary (Faulkner & Russell, 1997). The &lock-in e!ect' explains why accidents of his- tory are still current today. The classic example cited is of the QWERTY key board which was designed to prevent mechanical typewriters from jamming. Today, most key- boards are electronic, rendering the initial conditions for the development of the QWERTY key board obsolete, yet it still remains the standard. In a tourism context, transport corridors and trans-generational, repetitive be- havioural patterns among some tourists (&&our family has always gone there'') can have the same e!ect. By the same token, linear relationships can also exist within dynamical, chaotic systems. Indeed, Faulkner (pers comm.) argues that both linear and non-linear change exist in tourism systems, with one or the other dominating depending on the phases of the system. Thus, tourism can appear to evolve in a stable, predictable and linear manner over long periods of time, until a trigger initiates a period of chaotic upheaval where non-linear relationships dominate. The traditional Newtonian para- digm dismisses such episodes as being noise in the sys- tem. Chaos theory, on the other hand, appreciates them as being an intrinsic element of complex systems. 4. A chaos model of tourism 4.1. Why a new model? Most of the disparities evident between the reality of how tourism functions and how tourism operates theor- etically according to existing models can be accounted for through chaos theory. Acceptance of the idea that tourism operates in a manner more akin to open, living communities, rather than in a machine-like fashion pro- vides a stronger appreciation of the complex interplay between and among members of that community. The living systems analogy further explains the evident self- organising nature of tourism. Strange attractors explain how independent businesses, acting in an independent manner to ensure their own commercial survival, can work toward an apparent common goal. It further ex- plains why symbiotic relationships are formed between businesses that are in "erce competition with each other. A living systems model explains why keystone species are essential to the ongoing viability of a destination area and how the tourism community can survive the life and death of many organisms. The complex interplay of the many elements of the community, combined with the in#uence of a wide array of external elements explains why tourism operates in a non-linear manner. The unpredictable and, therefore, uncontrollable nature of tourism and the failure of most organisations to plan e!ectively for the future is again indicative of a chaotic system. These factors further ex- plain why tourism de"es top down control, while o!ering insights into how public sector organisations can strive to in#uence (if not control) the direction of growth. An understanding of the concept of SDIC explains how seemingly similar destination areas can evolve in completely di!erent manners. It also explains the un- predictable nature of tourism development, where even slight changes in initial conditions can lead to profoundly di!erent outcomes. The combined impacts of the lock-in e!ect and positive feedback further explain why some destinations seem to retain a level of appeal that would normally not be warranted. Complexity theory further shows that both instability and change are inherent, bene"cial characteristics of any tourism system. The history of most destinations has been punctuated by periods of great upheaval followed by periods of relative stability. This process is essential to enable the destination to re-invent itself. Plunging into chaos with the hope of re-emerging as a stronger destina- tion also explains the importance of the role that chaos makers or rogues can play in destination life cycle development. 4.2. The chaos model Fig. 1 presents an alternative model of tourism based on the principles embodied in chaos and complexity theory. As can be seen, the model is open, with movement occurring broadly from the traveller to outputs. Each element of the model is connected with other elements, either directly, or by no more than one step. As such, a perturbation at any element in the model may result in change to the state of tourism in the area under examina- tion. The model also acknowledges that considerable movement occurs between and within the identi"ed ele- ments. The model strives to explain tourism in terms of the complex inter-relationships that exist between and within at least nine major elements: z The raveller, who is the essential player in tourism, for without people travelling no tourism would occur. z The Communication vectors used to connect the travel- ler to the destination. z The Considerations or factors that in#uence the e!ec- tiveness of the Communication vectors used. z The Destination or Internal tourism community consisting of all businesses involved in tourism at the destination. B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 429 Fig. 1. A chaos model of tourism. z External tourism agencies (public and private sector) that try to in#uence tourism. z Other tourism-related externalities, such as alternative tourism destinations that a!ect a destination's ability to attract travellers. z Non-tourism-related externalities, or macro-environ- mental forces, such as changing political, economic or social conditions, war, natural disaster, that a!ect people's ability to travel. z Outputs from the system } both desired and undesired. z Rogues or Chaos makers who can push a system to the edge of chaos. This model depicts the operation of chaotic tourism system at a multi-dimensional level. It can be used equally well to represent the elements that in#uence tourismon a multi-national scale (Asia-Paci"c), a nation- al scale (Australia), at a regional level (Victoria), a sub- regional level (North East Victoria), at a local (Falls Creek Ski Resort) and even arguably at an enterprise 430 B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 level (Falls Creek Motel). While the number of actors that in#uence the system changes at each level, the relationships between elements remain similar, and thus the model continues to work. As a result, a system of in"nite complexity emerges as one delves deeper into tourism. By the same token, a system of in"nite complexity exists within each of the elements. The communications element has been identi"ed as a single element, for example, but it is recognised that delving into that ele- ment reveals a complex web of actions and interactions between players. A relatively small country like Austra- lia, for example has 5000 retail travel agents, 600 inbound tourism operators, a variety of outbound operators and over 45,000 individual tourism businesses all involved in communicating their message to the travelling public. 4.3. Describing the elements The destination or the internal tourism community de- scribes the businesses that exist within any destination area. Often called the destination mix and categorised according to the Five As (accommodation, attractions, activities, access and amenities), this element consists of all businesses that are wholly or partially reliant on tourism for their survival. The word &community' is used in its ecological sense, where a community is described as a living, dynamic, self-organising system with a group of organisms interacting with one another, cycling and re- cycling matter through the system. Anything crossing the boundary of that community is considered as either be- ing an input or an output. Importantly, the community as a whole is reliant on the ongoing health of its keystone species. In many ways, the ecological community analogy de- scribes tourism e!ectively. Tourism communities are liv- ing entities, comprised of an intricate array of organisms interacting with one another. Tourism communities are as dependent for their survival on their own keystone species, as are ecological communities. Moreover, the concept of product and destination life cycles implies that tourism businesses take on characteristics of living or- ganisms. As in any living community, there is a continual cycle of birth, life and death of individual entities. Fur- ther, while individual businesses may act independently and sel"shly for their own ends, complexity theory argues that collective adaption to sel"sh ends produces the max- imum average "tness, or the optimal mix of each species in the context of others (Lewin, 1993). While the internal tourism community is clearly at the heart of any successful tourism system, its survival is dependent on those elements that #ow into it and the impacts of its outputs on its surrounding environment. As such, one cannot analyse tourism without also being aware of how other elements shape the community and how the tourism community shapes these elements. Essentially, tourism is about people travelling, with the business of tourismabout linking tourists to destinations. For this reason, the raveller or tourist must be the starting point in the consideration of any tourism model. Markets are dynamic, erratic and non-linear (Diamond, 1993), with tourismmarkets, in particular, being noted by their great volatility. It stands to reason then, that if the key input into a system functions in a chaotic manner, the system itself must be driven by principles of chaos. Tourists behave in a "ckle manner, rendering destina- tions vulnerable to changing consumer tastes. A destina- tion may experience rapid growth for no other reason than the fact that a market has &discovered' it. By the same token, a destination may fall out of favour simply because the market has grown tired of it, or has popular- ised another destination. Ebbs and #ows in tourist arri- vals may have little to do with changes in the quality or quantity of product provided. Communication vectors are used to connect the travel- ler with the destination. Communication channels are exceedingly complex, involving all levels of the formal travel trade, other tourism retailers, the e!orts of public sector marketing and promotion agencies and direct communication between businesses and the travelling public. While the structure of the formal tourism distri- bution system can be described according to the number of steps involved used to connect the product to the tourist (Seaton & Bennett, 1996), it does not describe fully the convoluted relationships that exist between its di!erent sectors. A retail travel agent sells a number of products directly to the consumer on behalf of business- es, but also has a number of retail arrangements with di!erent wholesalers and inbound tour operators. As a consequence, an individual product for sale by a retail travel agent may actually be o!ered in many di!erent forms, as a stand alone product or as part of an almost seemingly unlimited number of packages developed by other elements of the travel industry. The formal travel distribution channel is only one option available to the operator or destination to reach the potential client. The multitude of direct marketing activities available, co-operative marketing, operator-in- itiated packaging, and word of mouth are also important communication channels used by the industry. The list is too great to detail here. As a result, a complex web of communications relationships and inter-relationships exists linking potential travellers with a multitude of destinations. It is evident that the e!ectiveness of di!erent commun- ications activities is in#uenced by a number of Consider- ations that in#uence both the ability to get the message into the market place and the likelihood that potential tourists who receive it will be motivated to travel. From a consumer's perspective, the critical issue is simply one of getting the right information. Commercial arrange- ments between the product and the distributor, past B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 431 experiences of both clients and the travel trade with the destination, general consumer awareness, general aware- ness by the travel trade, support from other organisa- tions, the volume and competitiveness of alternative products, the quality and attractiveness of the media used, and the visibility of the product/media within a re- tail outlet all in#uence the e!ectiveness of the commun- ication process. Further, as the gate-keeper between the consumer and the product, the individual who dissemi- nates the information has tremendous power to recom- mend certain products over others that may have little to do with either the quality of the product or its ability to satisfy the needs of the client. From an industry perspective, two other issues emerge: resource availability and the expertise of the individual expending those resources. Clearly, the ability of any tourism product, destination, region or country to reach potential consumers is limited by the absolute resources available and how e!ectively they are used. In an ideal world, a highly skilled set of professionals would adopt a strategic marketing focus to allocate its scarce re- sources in the best way to achieve optimal bene"ts. In reality, though, anyone who has examined tourism at an operators' level, would appreciate that this is rarely the case. While the larger players undoubtedly have the re- sources and the expertise to adopt a strategic marketing approach, the vast majority of people in small tourism businesses (which comprise the bulk of tourism organisa- tions) have few resources, little background in marketing and even less understanding of how the tourism distribu- tion system works. As a result, tourism is plagued by sub-optimal communications which limit the ability of most enterprises to achieve their desired goals. Even if the message reaches the potential consumer, a number of other spatial, temporal and "nancial consid- erations may inhibit the decision to visit, further limiting the e!ectiveness of the communications used. The related concepts of distance decay (demand reduces exponenti- ally as distance increases) and market access (a relative termthat suggests demand is in#uenced by the number of similar products/destinations available between the des- tination and the market) have a demonstrable e!ect on tourist #ows. Time availability has been shown to accen- tuate or minimise the e!ect of market access and distance decay (see McKercher, 1998). These factors, coupled with simple cost considerations, give some products and desti- nations an advantage in the marketplace, while disad- vantaging others, even though, ostensibly the products on o!er may be quite similar. External tourism agencies, those public and private sector agencies that function outside the commercial tourism world, can have an e!ect on most of the elements within this model. Pro-action on behalf of public sector tourism agencies has been shown to be a powerful in- itiator of phase shift that can transform a destination. Indeed, most countries that are recognised as interna- tional tourism destinations would not have achieved that status without active involvement by the national gov- ernment. While governments cannot control tourism, they can certainly in#uence the direction of its develop- ment. Case studies abound in the literature detailing how government policies to encourage or restrict foreign in- vestment, infrastructure development, visa policies, the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements, direct involve- ment in the international transport sector, and active involvement in marketing, among other actions, have been used to encourage the development of tourism. By the same token, the introduction of governments that are not supportive of tourism can signal a period of stagna- tion, as witnessed by Canada throughout much of the 1980s. External tourism agencies are not limited only to pub- lic sector agencies; they also involve the equally in#uen- tial, but often less well recognised set of private sector oriented tourism trade organisations. The main role of these organisations is to represent the interests of their speci"c sector to governments with the hope of fostering a positive environment for the development of tourism. Trade associations have not received much interest in the academic literature, but, in many ways, their presence is fundamental in the development of supportive public sector tourism policy. No product, destination, region or country operates in isolation. Its success depends on how well it competes against other tourism products and how well they com- pete against it. The success and therefore development of any system is intrinsically linked to how attractive it is in the eyes of the consumer when compared to other tourismsystems. Tourism initiatives that occur elsewhere can have a fundamental impact on the competitiveness of a destination, just as initiatives within the system can a!ect the competitiveness of other destinations. For this reason, a variety of Other tourism related externalities need to be included in any tourism model. Strategic marketing management theory acknowledges this factor explicitly when it suggests that the "rst role of any stra- tegic marketing exercise is to determine the product- markets an organisation wishes to compete. By extension this factor implies six inter-related decisions being made: the products an organisation wishes to o!er; the products it does not wish to o!er; the markets it wishes to pursue; the markets it wishes to avoid; the competitors it wishes to compete against; and the competitors it wishes to avoid (Aaker, 1995). The model further recognises two other elements that have the potential to plunge tourism into chaos: one is external to the tourism system, the other is internal. The role of Non-tourism-related externalities, such as natural disasters, oil shocks, global economic crises, global ter- rorism, the outbreak of war and other such events is well recognised in the tourism literature. These externalities occur rapidly and without warning. Previously stable 432 B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 tourism communities are plunged into a state of chaos, usually caused by a dramatic fall in visitors. What is less well recognised is the role of Chaos makers, or Rogues operating within the tourism system (Faulkner & Russell, 1998). These individuals can single- handedly transform an organisation, destination, region or country. Prior to Walt Disney purchasing much of Central Florida, for example, the primary tourist attrac- tion in Orlando was the Tupperware Museum. Today, thanks to the actions of that one chaos maker, Orlando is now one of the world's premier tourist destinations. Similar examples exist elsewhere, where the work of &pioneering' entrepreneurs is cited as transforming tourist destinations. Rogues are not con"ned solely to the destination, for the actions of individuals in the other elements of the model can have as dramatic an e!ect on the functions of any tourism system. The Freddie Laker's of this world who revolutionise transport push systems into chaos. Similarly, government leaders can directly encourage or retard the growth of tourism by their actions. Rogues and chaos makers can in#uence the communications channels and &&considerations'' elements, leading to the transformation of a destination. Even the actions of indi- viduals who are motivated to act because they feel adversely a!ected by tourism can push a tourism system to the edge of criticality. Lastly, this model considers the Outputs of tourism as an intrinsic aspect of any tourism system, for the impacts or perceived impacts of tourism at the host destination or other destinations are increasingly a!ecting its develop- ment. Governments support tourismout of the belief that it will provide a variety of positive outcomes, such as employment, enhancement of the tax base or the provis- ion of foreign currency. In addition, tourism is seen as a powerful tool to help modernise societies. On the other hand, opponents of tourism citing its legacy of adverse impacts have successfully blocked tourism development proposals. Positive or negative, the impacts of tourism are playing a greater role in development decisions. One of the paradoxes of public sector involvement in tourism is the belief that tourism can be controlled through a supply driven policy designed to achieve posit- ive outputs. The principle behind many national tourism policies begins with a statement of the desired outcomes of tourism and then to work backwards through the model to encourage the &right' type of development and to attract the &right' type of tourist to achieve these goals. In this manner, a namKve belief emerges that tourismcan be controlled from above. The problem with this ideal is that public sector tourism planners have no real control over any of the other elements in the tourism model. In reality, tourism remains a demand driven activity, where markets seek destinations that satisfy their demands. Because the industry is dominated by private sector players which must remain commercially viable, it pro- vides products that it thinks the consumers want. As a result, there is often an inherent contradiction between the &public good' of tourism and the commercial realities of running tourism businesses. The best public sector players can hope to achieve is to guide tourism develop- ment through regulatory means and to strive to direct its evolution through other policy measures. But, the public sector can never control tourism. 5. Conclusions and implications This paper proposes an alternative model of tourism based on the principles encapsulated by chaos and com- plexity theory. In it, the author argues that tourism functions in a non-linear, non-deterministic and dynam- ical manner, where tourism systems function in a manner akin to living ecological communities. It also appreciates that turbulence and periods of intense upheaval are both an intrinsic element of the system and an essential ele- ment to promote rapid change in tourism communities. The model identi"es nine component elements of tourism that comprise any tourism system. A rich and complex set of relationships exists between and within each ele- ment that determines how each tourism system will per- form. While an overall movement occurs through the model from consumer to outputs, it is acknowledged that signi"cant backwards and/or vertical movement occurs between and within the elements. The model was developed in an attempt to explain better the relationships that exist between the varied ele- ments that constitute a tourism system that are currently not explained fully by the existing models. It was also developed in an attempt to initiate more intellectual de- bate about how tourism functions, a debate that seems to have entered a lull in the past few years. As such, the model does not propose any answers, nor is it intended to enter a detailed debate about the implications of chaos theory on the operations of individual tourism enterprises. These issues are worthy topics for papers in their own right. A chaos approach to tourism explains, at a conceptual level, much of the variability noted in tourism that con- founds the ability of tourism policy makers to control tourism and of strategic planners to predict accurately future tourism #ows. Further, appreciating the chaotic nature of tourism may force public and private sector players to reconsider their roles. The role of public sector players in a chaotic tourism system becomes one of trying to in#uence the direction of growth within broad parameters rather than trying to exert covert control over it. At a micro, or operational level, the role of tourism enterprises becomes one of ensuring their niche in the rapidly evolving living tourism community by responding to or anticipating change, protecting its habi- tat and by continuing to evolve at least as rapidly as the system is evolving to secure a preferred habitat position. B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434 433 Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Gary Williams for his assistance in drafting the model presented in this paper. References Aaker, D. (1995). Strategic marketing management, (4th ed.), Brisbane: Wiley. Anon (1998). Measuring the true worth of tourism. Forecast, 4(1), 28}29. Burlando, T. (1994). Chaos and risk management. Risk Management, 41 (4), 54}61. Covey, S. R. (1994). The strange attractor. Executive Excellence, 11(8) 5}6. Crossman, M., White, R. E., Lane, H. W., & Klus, L. (1996). The improvising organisation: Where planning meets opportunity. Or- ganisational Dynamics, 24(94), 20}35. Diamond, A. H. (1993). Chaos science. Marketing Research: A magazine of Management and Applications, 5(4) 8}14. Ditto, W., & Manukata, T. (1995). Principles and applications of chaotic systems: Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 96}102. Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (1997). Chaos and complexity in tourism: In search of a new perspective. Paci,c ourism Review, 1(2), 93}102. Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (1998). Movers and shakers: he chaos makers on the Gold Coast. Paper presented at the 1998 Australian National ourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Gold Coast, February 1998. Flower, J. (1993). The power of chaos. Healthcare Forum, 36(5), 48}55. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. London: Abacus Books. Gunn, C. (1979). ourism planning New York, NY: Crane Russack. Klomp, N., & Green, D. (1997). Complexity and connectivity in ecosys- tems. Paper presented at the hird Australian National Conference on Complex Systems, Albury. Leiper, N. (1990). ourism systems: An interdisciplinary perspective. Department of management systems (Occasional Paper C1), Massey University, New Zealand. Lewin, R. (1993). Complexity: ife on the edge of chaos. London: Phoenix. McIntosh, R., Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, B. (1994). ourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (7th ed.), New York: Wiley. McKercher, B., & Ritchie, M. (1997). The third tier of public sector tourism: A pro"le of local government tourism o$cers in Australia. Journal of ravel Research, 36(1), 66}72. McKercher, B. (1998). The e!ect of market access on destination choice, Journal of ravel Research, 37 (August), 39}47. Mill, R., & Morrison, A. (1985). he tourism system, Sydney: Prentice- Hall International. Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. London: Rout- ledge. Overman, E. S. (1996). The new science of administration: chaos and quantum theory. Public Administration Review, 56(5), 487}491. Paisley, E. (1993). Marketing: Out of chaos, pro"ts. Far Eastern Eco- nomic Review, 156(40), 84. Parry, B., & Drost, R. (1995). Is chaos good for your pro"ts? Interna- tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(1), i}iii. Pearce, D. (1989). ourist development, (2nd ed.), Harlow: Longman. Spencer, B. (1995). Magpie: Business Physics } chaos in business pro- cessing. Management Services, 39(3), 22}23. Svyantek, D. J., & DeShon, R. P. (1993). Organisational attractors: A chaos theory explanation of why cultural change e!orts often fail. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(3), 339}355. van de Vliet, A. (1994). Order from chaos. Management oday, 62}65. Vinten, G. (1992). Thriving on chaos: The route to management sur- vival. Management Decisions, 30(8), 22}28. Winkler, T. (1998). Councils stall tourism: Claim. he Age, (March 14, p. 17). Winsor, R. D. (1995). Marketing under conditions of chaos } percola- tion metaphors and models. Journal of Business Research, 34(3), 181}189. WTO (1994). National and regional tourism planning: Methodologies and case studies. London: Routledge. 434 B. McKercher / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 425}434