International Journal of Tourism Sciences, Volume 5, Number 1, pp.

1-17, 2005
Tourism Sciences Society of Korea. ll ri!"ts reser#e$.
%omple&ity in Tourism Structures ' t"e (mbe$$e$
System of Ne) *ealan$+s ,e!ional Tourism
-r!anisation
nne *a"ra an$ %"ris ,yan

Waikado University, New Zealand

bstract. Chaos and complexity theory implies a holistic, evolutionary systems
approach to tourism. This paper discusses the key elements of chaos theory and provides
a brief description of how chaos and complexity theory has been discussed and applied
in tourism research with specific reference to reional tourism orani!ations in New
Zealand. The New Zealand Tourism "tratey #$%$ has acted as a catalyst for chane in
the wider New Zealand Tourism system and more specifically for &eional Tourism
'ranizations (&T's). *iven current chanes in New Zealand+s tourism policies and the
renewed debate about &T's, the use of chaos theory may contribute to ainin an
understandin of the nature, role and functions of &T's and their evolution and process
of chane.
Key /or$s. Chaos, Complexity, "ystems, &eional Tourism 'rani!ations,
New Zealand
,
-epartment of Tourism .anaement Waikato .anaement "chool The University
of Waikato New Zealand
### /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
0ntro$uction
This paper comprises two sections. The first is a discussion of chaos and
complexity theory and seeks to provide an introduction to the concepts
associated with these theori!ations with reference to the social sciences and the
study of tourism. The second section of the paper describes processes of
chane pertainin to New Zealand+s &eional Tourism 'rani!ations (&T's).
The New Zealand Tourism "tratey #$%$ (NZT" #$%$) contains forty three
0key recommendations1 of which half relate stronly to &eional Tourist
'rani!ations (&T's) (&T' &esponse to NZT" #$%$, #$$#), and hence at the
time of writin some uncertainty exists as to their future form. 2nasmuch as
3aulkner and &ussell (%445, #$$$), 3aulkner and 6ikulov (#$$%) and
.c7ercher (%444) have all arued that complexity theory can help explain
structural processes in tourism, the paper examines whether these theories are
of help in understandin the nature of the chanes that have taken place. 2t can
be arued that linear developmental models fail to capture the complexities of
the political as well as industrial structures within which &T's operate and thus
alternative approaches are re8uired to avoid situations where the story tellin of
structural chane can only be descriptive in nature.
This paper emanates from the first researcher+s doctoral studies into the
evolution, function and performance of &eional Tourism 'rani!ations in
New Zealand9 which research provided an impetus for a search for an
ontoloical perspective that would help enerate understandin of the
complexities that emered from the study. This paper thus discusses complexity
theory, and asks whether structural chane in this instance is evolutionary or
simply chaotic.
%"aos an$ %omple&ity
/xelrod and Cohen (%444) arue that chaos and complexity theories differ.
Chaos deals with situations such as turbulence, which lead to disorani!ed and
unmanaeable systems. Complexity theory deals with systems that have many
interactin aents and althouh hard to predict, these systems have structure
and permit improvement. :ennins (#$$%) claims that chaos theory is bein
challened by complexity theory. .c7ercher (%444) on the other hand treats
chaos and complexity as companions describin how complex systems function
Complexity in Tourism Structures 3
and this view is supported by ;yrne (%44<), =ewin (%44>), 3aulkner and
&ussell (%445) and &ussell and 3aulkner (#$$?).
2n popular lanuae chaos is associated with anti@order. Aowever scientific
usae views chaos as Bnot@order+ which may contain andCor precede order
(Aayles, %44%). Waldrop (%44%) sees complexity as the emerin science at the
ede of order and chaos. Aayles (%44%), unifies these two definitions by statin
that the concept of chaos represents extremely complex information rather than
an absence of order in social science research. 3aulkner and &ussell (#$$%)
state that chaos is a creative stae that leads to a new more complex order and
this is the linkae between chaos and the notion of complexity.
Chaos theory takes into account the fact that the whole is reater than the
sum of the parts and that systems and oranisations are dynamic, complex and
syneristic. The application of chaos theory in the social sciences has
developed from advances in mathematics and systems bioloy. 3or the
mathematician chaos is a state in which one cannot be certain of what is oin
to happen next, even when there is a ood rasp of what is happenin in the
present (=ee, %44$). 3rom a mathematical perspective chaos theory is often
associated with fractal mathematics which produces shapes that are systematic
even whilst components are uncertain in outcome as to form.
/ comparatively simple example is provided by the formula
1
t-1
2 r
&t
31-&
t
4 314
3or any value of r between $ and %, the solution will rapidly convere on
!ero for any value of x
0
between $ and %. 2f r is raised to values between % and
three, the solution converes on
&
5
2 1-16r 32)
3or values of r above three, for any other value of x
D
the solution will no
loner convere. 2nitially there is an oscillation and then cycles of values will
appear until after a certain point chaotic values occur only for those values to
subse8uently reappear in an oscillatin state before aain repeatin cycles of
oscillation and chaos (=ee, %44$).
/lthouh the system is unpredictable and individual behaviour is hihly
complex 0because of some inbuilt constraints in the totality the end effect is
within boundaries, there is non@repetitive repetitiveness1 (Nilson, %44E. p.#$).
This is illustrated by fractal mathematics where the value B%+ poses a boundary
as additive functions of above and below that value approach either a value of
##? /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
!ero or infinity. The value of B%+ about a point of oriin acts as the boundary
between these two differin options.
The order that emeres from chaos is enerally described in terms of
Bstrane attractors+ (;yrne, %44<). / strane attractor in eometry has a pattern
but is dynamic9 it has twists, turns and reverses (Foun, %44%). "trane
attractors have fractal dimensions. 2n eometry a fractal is the measure of the
irreularity of the shape of an obGect, it is neither a straiht line nor a smooth
curve. 3ractal eometry is associated with chaos theory where 0in nature,
whenever a chaotic process leaves a permanent result, that result seems to be a
fractal shape. The chaotic poundin of the ocean on the shoreline leaves a
fractal coast1 (=ee, %44$. p.%>#). 2n a business context, strane attractors
have been likened to a common vision, sense of meanin, stratey or value
system that drives people to achieve a common oal. This often leads to a
system manain itself, often in an unknowin manner towards a common
oal, but it is difficult to predict the future position of the system (.c7ercher,
%444).
"cientific rationalism possesses a Gustification in that it permits prediction,
and more specifically if linear relationships exist, it becomes possible to discern
underlyin Blaws+ of behaviour (;yrne, %44<). 'n the other hand most systems
do not work in a simple linear fashion. Chaos theory hihlihts that very few
relationships are linear and non@linear relationships are more difficult to fathom
and solve, than their linear counterparts (Nilson, %44E). The chaotic system is a
system in which the relationship between any two parts, variables, events or
states cannot be predicted and these relationships chane nonlinearly and
unpredictably over time (Foun, %44%).
2n mathematics, an e8uation that describes how somethin chanes over
time is termed as bein dynamic (;yrne, %44%). 2f one has a nonlinear
relationship then to be dynamic in a social science context means one does not
know the exact outcome of chane. "ystems which have a chaotic dynamic
develop throuh a pattern of bifurcations. ;ifurcations are connected to fractal
phase@shape in that they move out of the linear realm and instability beins and
nonlinearity sets in (Foun, %44%). /s one ets close to the bifurcation points,
the values of fluctuations increase dramatically. This leads to the butterfly
effect in which a small chane can lead to a sinificant chane in the system.
The butterfly metaphor has been borrowed from weather forecastin. =oren!o,
an atmospheric physicist, discovered this
phenomena when he re@ran some weather data by re@inputtin print@
out results which were accurate to three decimal places instead of to
Complexity in Tourism Structures 5
the six the computer used in internal calculations. &e@inputtin the
data produced very different outcomes because the measures differed
in the fourth decimal place (;yrne, %44<. p.%4).
=oren!o+s work hihlihts two components9 first that small differences
result in sinificant differences over time (his oriinal discovery comin from
adGustin his climate model to make predictions from the third instead of H
th
decimal point) and second, that, by mappin toporaphies of series, apparent
chaotic systems produced ordered patterns from the oscillations recorded in
time series (*leick, %4<<). These observations offer an explanation of why
elaborate computer prorams cannot predict, with one hundred percent
accuracy, weather patterns. Fet, even thouh the weather is unpredictable it
remains within a boundary. / chaotic system is thus dynamic and non@linear,
and it is hard to predict the outcome of a iven input and the feedback loops
this causes. When the feedback is positive then there is proression, the system
is movin forward. 3eedback loops do not always produce the same effects and
are not predictable, however, it is complex feedback systems, creatin loops
that is controllin the chaos system and keepin it within its boundaries
(Nilson, %44E).
;yrne (%44<) arues that chaos and complexity theory is based on an
ontoloical realism. Foun (%44%), a postmodernist, on the other hand, arues
that the ontoloy revealed by chaos theory is non@linear and that there are no
universal standards or natural and necessary forms in society, that all are 0
human constructs and fit within the poetics of postmodern social theory1
(p.#45). The authors of this paper adopt the realist stance in that what is
observed in the world is Breal+ and that it is the product of continent causal
mechanisms which may not be directly accessible to the researcher (;yrne,
%44<).
%"aos an$ %omple&ity T"eory in Social Sciences
2t has been arued that most modern social scientists are reductionists
(e..;yrne, %44<)9 the world, human behaviour and society are studied as
components and parts of a system that can be disareated as befits the
scientific method that commenced in the Inlihtenment and the 2ndustrial /e
of the nineteenth century. Jost@modernity however deconstructs that apparent
order and from this perspective hitherto separate cateories combine to form
new realities. Within the tourism industry, past history and fantasy combine to
##H /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
create experiential authenticities of theme parks and cultural representations as
evidenced by Universal "tudios and Auis Ten ;osch, to cite but two examples.
Jlace and time are dislocated from their oriinal to form new hybrids of
realities. Under such circumstance it can be arued that empiricist positivism
can present only limited understandins, and new theoretical composition of the
playful place (Aallyar and *riffin, #$$E), the role of intimacy (Trauer and
&yan, #$$E) and bounded draons (a term used to describe the undulatin path
of
:apanese tourist experiences in ;ritain, Takai@Tokunaa, #$$?) are bein
used as constructs and metaphors to better understand contemporary tourism. 2t
seems proper therefore that chaos theory should also be utili!ed as a potential
means of better understandin tourism.
*iven this state of systematic disorder, in the social sciences chaos theory
8uestions positivist assumptions ofK a) hypothesis formulation that lead to
predictable outcomes9 b) the 8uantification and measurement of dynamics9 and
c) replication of findins and producin a theory of behaviour that is to be
applied to all systems, for all times (Foun, %44%). 2n systems theory the
optimal situation is where stability and e8uilibrium are achieved. 2n a chaotic
system, a small chane can lead to a dramatic and unpredictable outcome
(Nilson, %44E). Aowever, dynamic chaotic systems are not totally out of control
and chaos does not imply a complete lack of order. "ystems that are totally out
of control, otherwise known as totally turbulent systems (Nilson, %44E), move
beyond the boundaries within which chaos theory operates. 2n chaos theory the
system tends to work in a seeminly random and complex way, in that each
element in the system may seem to act in an independent manner but the
system as a whole does not pass certain boundaries.
ChaosCcomplexity is evolutionary, dealin with processes that are
fundamentally historical. ;yrne(%44<) states that one needs to combine the two
themes of complexityK evolutionary development and holistic systems. This is
demonstrated when lookin at chane over time.
/t the points of evolutionary development throuh history, the new
systems which appear (a better word than Bemere+ because it is not
radualist in implication) have new properties which are not to be
accounted for by the elements by which they can analysed (i.e. they are
holistic), or by the content of their precursors.1 (;yne, %44<. p.%E).
To summarise therefore, chaos and complexity theory within social
science is characterised byK
Complexity in Tourism Structures 7
%) 'ntoloical realism9
#) The livin systems metaphor. ;ehaviour cannot be predicted and
sees real@life systems as unpredictable yet ordered9
>) /n evolutionary development of systems is feasible, but is subGect
to abrupt chanes of direction9
?) "ystems and relationships are nonlinear, complex and difficult to
predict
E) "ystems are inherently unstable but feedback loops can keep the
system within boundaries9
H) The ;utterfly effect describes a situation where a small chane
can precipitate a chain reaction that cumulates in a sinificant
chane in the system9
5) / Bbottom up synthesis+ exists whereby individual aents driven
by simple rules provide the basis for the emerence of complex
dynamic systems (Casti, %44?)9
<) 2ndividual differences and random externalities provide the
drivin force for variety, adaptation and complexity
4) =ife is viewed as involvin an enery, force or spirit that
transcends mere matter.
%$) /n Bede of chaos+ exists, analoous to a phase shift in physics,
whereby a system is in a state of tenuous e8uilibrium on the vere
of collapsin into a rapidly chanin state of dynamic evolution9
and
%%) 'rder emeres out of chaos, and vice versa.
%"aos an$ %omple&ity in Tourism ,esearc"
3aulkner and &ussell (%445) present chaos and complexity as an alternative
framework to explain tourism phenomena because of the deficiencies in tryin
to understand systems, by dissectin them into their component parts and then
assumin that the relationships between these parts are stable and static. They
apply some of the basic concepts of chaos and complexity to tourism contexts.
"ome of these examples areK
The butterfly effect:
terrorism activities in Iurope in the %4<$s increased inbound tourism to
safe destinations such as /ustralia9
Bottom up synthesis:
##< /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
competition between operators providin similar products and
cooperative relationships between vertically interated providers at a
sinle destination9
Edge of chaos (phase shift):
phase shifts in the life cycle of a destination that may be contrary to
traditional life cycle theory e.. a failure for the involvement stae to
follow an exploration stae9 or entrepreneurial action predatin
exploration.
.c7ercher (%444) advocates the use of the chaos model for tourism
because of the complex interplay of the many elements of the community,
combined with the influence 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 orani!ations to plan
effectively for the future is aain indicative of a chaotic system. These factors
further explain why tourism defies top down control, while offerin insihts
into how public sector orani!ations can strive to influence (if not control) the
direction of rowth (p.?#4).
Idar and Nisbet (%44H) apply chaos and complexity in a hospitality
manaement context in which mainstream manaement concepts such as lon@
term strateic plannin and forecastin are 8uestioned, as it is assumed that
there is an ideal e8uilibrium, stability and linear causality. They claim that
hospitality oranisations are spatially disareated and framented and
operate in complex and dynamic environments. Ivents and chane for
hospitality oranisations are driven by non@linear feedback loops, the
oranisation is pulled between periods of certainty and control, with uncertainty
arisin from a drive for innovation, excitement and independence.
&ussell and 3aulkner (%444) use chaosCcomplexity theory to provide
insihts into the underlyin dynamics of the history of tourism development
and the process of chane by examinin entrepreneurial activity in the *old
Coast of /ustralia. They link entrepreneurship and chaos theory in their case
study. They found that there was tension between the entrepreneurs (the chaos
makers) and planners and reulators (the dampeners) who try to moderate and
control chane. Jeriods of rapid chane were characterised by chaos, this
occurred when the chaos makers prevailed over the dampeners.
Thus, contrary to the usual representation of the destination life cycle as
presented by ;utler+s (%4<$) diarammatic use of the "@shaped curve, tourism
Complexity in Tourism Structures 9
development is often characterised by non@linear spurts and interventions that
are sinificant. =ike any open system, the tourism system can be exposed to
exoenous shocks, and in another paper 3aulkner and 6ikolov (#$$%) provide
the example of a natural disaster (the 7atherine 3lood in /ustralia). There was
a trierin event, an exceptional flood that 0challened the existin structure,
routine operations and survival of tourism businesses and the reional tourism
association1 (p. >>%) and this flood represented a turnin point in the evolution
of the destination with both positive and neative effects. ;oth at the heiht of
the flood and the period after were described as fluid, unstable and dynamic but
aruably the situation returned to stability and evolutionary rowth within
months of the flood. -iscussion by one of the researchers with 7atherine
&eional Tourism 'rani!ation (&T') revealed that the &T' disputed some of
3aulkner and 6ikulov (#$$%) interpretations aruin that it was able to re@
establish past patterns by pro@active marketin in key southern /ustralian
markets. That is, tried and tested reimes established stable systems and it was
not a case of new dynamics bein established. 2n terms of more conventional
positivistic modelin, it miht be said that the system was inherently stable and
could be accounted for in conventional time series or reression analysis with
dummy variables bein introduced to deal with exoenous shocks.
2n short therefore, the application of chaos theory in any social analysis
re8uires proof of more than simply an exoenous shock to an inherently
orani!ed if nonetheless non@static system. 3or example, it can be arued that
the destination life cycle theory, with adaptation, has proven capable of
providin a rationale for destination development and non@development
throuh the identification of enablin and inhibitin factors.
Aowever, for their part &ussell and 3aulkner (#$$?) souht to combine
chaos and complexity theory and the tourism area lifecycle model to examine
the development of two /ustralian destinations and hihliht elements of
chane turbulence and unpredictability. They alin the tourism area lifecycle
stae, the entrepreneurship stae and the chaos state by identifyin butterfly
triers, phase shifts, tenuous e8uilibrium, positive feedback, sustained
e8uilibrium, isolated neative loops, bifurcation points and the ede of chaos.
Nonetheless, while 3aulkner and &ussell (#$$%) provide a prima facie
arument that an alternative conceptual framework for tourism research is
chaos and complexity theory in order to help develop and better understand the
dynamics of chane, their case is open to the counter@chare that tourism
research, to date, seems to be reducin chaos theory to bein simply a process
of reaction to external factors such as the pilots+ strike in /ustralia in the early
%44$s, floods as in the 7atherine example or the "eptember %%
th
terrorist
attacks. To sustain the arument that the touristic system is incapable of
##%$ /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
converence upon a linear relationship it needs to be shown that factors such as
those listed above represent diverence from trends that are not re@established
but rather become dynamic systems creatin new and unpredictable
dimensions.
pplication of t"e %"aos T"eory 7ara$i!m to an (&amination
of Ne) *ealan$+s ,e!ional Tourism -r!ani8ations
New Zealand has a lon history, since %4$%, of national and reional tourism
oranisations, and these have been examined in a series of articles in the
academic literature that includes work by &yan and "immons (%444), "impson
(#$$>), &yan and Zahra (#$$?) and Zahra and &yan (forthcomin). /n
examination of this literature indicates numerous twists and turns in the history
of reional tourism oranisations (&T's), which include at times the demise
and reappearance of individual &T's such as those of Taranaki and the ;ay of
Jlenty. This history seeminly has at least as much to do with shiftin political
aspirations and ideoloies and the personal aspiration of individuals as they
have with perceived problems and difficulties bein faced by the industry. 2n
&ussell and 3aulkner+s terminoloy, it is a history of shakers and movers as
much as an issue of rowth trends and wider structural developments. The
8uestion is whether the role of chanin political fortunes and personalities is
such as to create a dynamism separate and different to that which can be
explained by wider structural chane. To some extent, &T's miht be said to
have operated within a non@static but predictable flow of domestic and
international tourism iven the econometric literature on predictin arrivals in
New Zealand (e.. Turner and Witt, #$$%). 2n itself these rowin numbers of
tourists, within the model of the destination life cycle provide an imperative for
better and more oranised promotion and marketin (&yan, #$$>)9 but the
individual histories of some &T's cannot be wholly explained by such factors.
/s noted, some have appeared and disappeared, while to a deree, no common
structure or fundin pattern have emered amon the others. "ome, such as
those of &otorua and Wellinton are stron and primarily sinle bodies, others
are based on an alliance of local authority spendin (e.. /uckland and
Waikato) while yet others are little more than an umbrella oranisation with the
main budets bein held by subsidiary district tourism oranisations (e..
-estination .anawatu). 3rom this perspective a chaotic state miht be said to
exist.
'ntoloically, chaos and complexity theory assumes that Breality+ exists Bout
there+. That is, it exists outside and independent of the human mind, but this
Complexity in Tourism Structures 11
reality tends to instability, disorder, dise8uilibrium and non@linearity. The
current social world is seen to be characterised by an accelerated pace of
technoloy driven chane, leadin to the destabilisation of social relationships
and increasin levels of uncertainty (3aulkner L &ussell, %445). This reality is
unpredictable and cannot be ordered. The premise of ontoloical realism is
conruent with a research investiation of &T's in New Zealand. The
phenomenon is Bout there+ but the authors+ investiation is attemptin to
analyse and document chane. This chane process is provin to be difficult to
rasp and record due to the complexities and interrelationships between
individual players and oranisations and it is even more difficult to reduce all
this to a simplistic model.
3rom an epistemoloical point of view the application of chaos theory to the
social sciences assumes that there is a distinction between the researcher and
the phenomena bein investiated and that the nature of in8uiry by the
researcher will be dynamic. The obGect of the investiation will be always
chanin, thus the researcher will need to spend time in the field to ensure that
the disorder bein experienced is not Bforced+ into patterns or explanations
(Jatton, %44$). 'ne of the maGor difficulties that have been encountered in this
particular research investiation of &T's is the dynamic chane that has and is
takin place and how one handles this chane. 'ne approach has been to
simply record what has happened. The limitations to this approach however, is
that the process of chane does not cease while the research process provides
examples of differin interpretations, understandins and recall of what
happened when (e.. see Zahra and &yan, forthcomin). /nother difficulty that
has been encountered is decidin what chane does one try to capture and
record and what chane has to be left out of the investiation. 'ne example was
that of .aori &eional Tourism 'ranisations. &T's, new&T's and .aori
bein empowered to form their own reional tourism oranisations, are all
interlinked and dynamic dimensions of the same process enerated by the New
Zealand Tourism "tratey #$%$. The researcher acknowleded that it was oin
to be difficult to capture all these complex dimensions that were takin place at
the same time and therefore made a conscious decision to exclude .aori
reional tourism oranisations from the study.
Chaos implies loss of control, which can be threatenin to an individual,
oranisation or even the researcher. This loss of control adds a new dimension
in the relationship between the researcher and obGectsCsubGects bein
researched. The researcher needed to acknowlede early in the investiation
that the research process could not be smoothly manaed and that decisions and
outcomes would be constantly chanin. The chaos and complexity paradim
also assumes that periods of instability are intrinsic to the operation and
##%# /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
essential for chane to complex systems (.c7ercher, %444) and thus the
researcher needs to be aware of this durin the investiation process otherwise
complex relationships may be overlooked. There was instability in the mid to
late %44$s for &T's, when the tourism industry was left predominantly to
market forces, with little planned leadership from overnment. The overnment
leadership that existed was idiosyncratic in the late %44$s and orientated toward
event promotion such as the /merica+s Cup and the .illennium. 2t was a
period when the then .inister of Tourism was held to have one beyond the
powers of a .inister by direct interference in the daily runnin of the New
Zealand Tourism ;oard, leadin to resinations from the ;oard and the
eventual resination of the .inister. This instability provoked the tourism
industry, throuh its peak industry body, the T2/NZ and its CI', to initiate
and enerate discussion for the #$%$ tourism stratey. There was a period of
instability when the "tratey first came out because some of its radical
recommendations, especially for &T's, but this in turn provoked chane. 'ne
example of the "tratey bein a catalyst or bifurcation for chane was the
collaboration of &T's, who had never really worked toether before on a
national basis, resultin in the decision to form the &eional Tourism
'ranisation Network (&T'N). 2t should be noted that some reional
marketin alliances amon neihbourin &T's existed prior to this, but this
represented a new chane in that it was a conscious decision to respond to
political initiatives over and beyond simple matters of marketin. /nother
example of the "tratey bein a catalyst for chane is that =ocal *overnment
New Zealand also responded with a call to member oranisations to better plan
the manaement of tourism.
.c7ercher (%444) assumes that relationships are open and complex,
therefore complexity brins about an innate level of instability which makes it
extremely difficult to predict accurately the future movement or direction of the
oranisation or the system. 2t seems that when chaos and complexity theory is
used in the social sciences as Bmetaphor+ it is assumed that human beins have
free will and that their actions are not always predictable. Chaos theory
challenes us to deal with unpredictability and indeterminism in human
behaviour (Jatton, %44$). &ussell and 3aulkner (%444, #$$?) look at the free
actions of entrepreneurs and their action or inaction on the development of a
tourism destination. 2n studyin the evolution of reional tourism oranisations
in New Zealand over twenty five years one can see how the actions of certain
individuals can brin about chane. &T's bean and rew under the Tourism
2ndustry /ssociation (NZT23) and the New Zealand Tourism and Jublicity
-epartment (NZTJ). Then after a few years certain individuals and the &T's
they represented, souht reater independence and control over their own
Complexity in Tourism Structures 13
actions. Aowever this independence for some &T's such as Taranaki, led to
their lon term demise and was one of the contributin factors to the
destablisation of &T's in the %44$s.
The research methodoloies of chaos theory that are applied to the social
sciences can be either 8uantitative or 8ualitative. The 8ualitative techni8ues
will rely heavily on metaphors to make sense of the results (:ennins, #$$%).
This metaphor can describe a lot of the fieldwork in real world settins and the
implications for the researcher are sinificant. 3rom one perspective the
researcher workin within the chaos theory paradim has to avoid the need for
order, to avoid describin the rearranin walls of an evolvin ma!e by
reference to a sinle static diaram (Jatton, %44$). 2n workin with the
phenomena surroundin &T's, it has been very difficult to simplify thins and
reflect the interrelationships and chanes that are takin place in diarams and
models and therefore models and diarams have not been used to date.
&esearchers will enerally spend a lot of time in the field observin and
describin the system or the oranisation. 2n the case of this research
investiation more time has been spent on interviewin people, and observin
outcomes of the process rather than the interactions of people. 2n describin
non@linear dynamics (chaos), one needs to be careful to avoid imposin false
order to fulfil the presumed traditional purpose of research analysis. The
challene for the researcher is how to observe and describe dynamic, constantly
chanin phenomena without imposin a static structure as a conse8uence of
the boundaries one imposes in seekin to define and understand the phenomena
(Jatton, %44$).
3inally the researcher needs to consider that by the very fact of enterin into
a settin the researcher may not only create problems of validity but Bthe
researcher+s entry may make it a different settin altoether M and forever1
(Jatton, %44$, p. <>) and there are examples of this already in this research
process. /s *lieck (%4<<) aptly describes usin a metaphor, 0non@linearity
means the act of playin the ame has a way of chanin the rules1 (p. #?).
"ome of the key actors are very interested in the findins of the researcher.
'ne of the consultants who has been commissioned by the .inistry of
Tourism, =ocal *overnment New Zealand and the &eional Tourism
'ranisations Network, is seekin reassurance that there is no reat diverence
between his findins and recommendations and the research investiation+s
findins and he is also usin the findins of the research in his other
consultancy work. /nother example, of the researcher+s entry perhaps leadin
to a different settin, is that the researcher ave a presentation of the evolution
and history of &T's over the last #E years at an academic conference that had
research and policy staff from the .inistry of Tourism in the audience. The
##%? /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
conclusion of this presentation was that &T's in the past have had a life of
their own and althouh there have been attempts to manae and direct &T's
from the top, this has not worked in the past. "ome of the .inistry of Tourism
staff took note and have pursued discussions with the researcher on some of the
obstacles, that the researcher perceives, for the implementation of the
recommendation in the #$%$ stratey of fewer and new&T's and that it is
perhaps unrealistic for this recommendation to be implemented.
%onclusion
The contribution of chaos theory is that it takes into account the fact that the
whole is reater than the sum of the parts and that systems and oranisations
are dynamic and complex. Chaos does not imply a complete lack of order.
/lthouh each element in the system may seem to act in an independent
manner, collectively the entire system functions in an orderly manner as it is
overned by a number of underlyin principles, leadin to spontaneous order.
'ne explanation of this order out of chaos are concepts such as the Bstrane
attractor+ and feedback loops that keep and maintain the system within a set
boundary. 2n the New Zealand &T' context a new oranisation &eional
Tourism 'ranisation Network of New Zealand (&T'NZ) and =ocal
*overnment New Zealand (=*NZ) and most importantly fundin by the
.inistry of Tourism could be called Bstrane attractors+. These strane
attractors often lead to a system manain itself, often in an unknowin manner
towards a common oal and to date this common oal has been not to loose the
reional and parochial identity of &T's and forestall top down control.
Aowever it is difficult to predict the future position of the system (.c7ercher,
%444) and who knows what will happen in the future if the .inistry of Tourism
does not continue to fund the secretariat of &T'NNZ, if =*NZ place tourism
further down the aenda once aain and if the key players, the movers and
shakers, move on.
/nother manifestation of chaos and complexity in &T's and their process
of chane is the manifestation of the butterfly effect. The CI' of the Tourism
2ndustry /ssociation of New Zealand in the late %44$s took the initiative to
provide leadership and direction for the entire industry. "he herself said that she
did not foresee all the ramifications this initiative would have, especially the
process of study and chane envisaed for &T's. The new .inistry of Tourism
under the new =abour overnment in %444 could be likened to a bifurcation in
the complex system which supported the initiatives of the CI' and sponsored
and supported the release of the New Zealand Tourism "tratey #$%$ which
forced at least the study and analysis of the role of &T's. 3eedback loops,
which to date have kept the nature and the functions of &T's within the same
Complexity in Tourism Structures 15
boundaries for #E years, are manifested in the consultative process that is takin
place with all twenty six &T's in New Zealand. This consultative process has
been funded by the .inistry of Tourism. To date this process seems to be
leadin to some chane but not the radical chane of new and fewer &T's
recommended in the #$%$ "tratey.
Chaos and complexity theory as a paradimCframework is a useful tool that
has provided an understandin and insiht into the complex interrelationships
that surround &T's in New Zealand and helped explain and analy!e the
dynamics of chane. Whether it wholly explains the nature of the phenomenon
is, however, debatable. 2t has been observed that tourist flows themselves are
predictable, and the implications of destination life cycle o beyond simple
relationships of visitor numbers and time to encompass structural chanes. The
conse8uence of this is that possibly there is not one system, but several, with
the system of &T's bein embedded within a wider system. That wider
economic system permits predictable future tourist forecastin, but at the more
local site level reactions to those flows become less predictable and reflective
of other than eneral determinants of tourist demand. Jarochialism, personal
aendas and ambitions, and local political processes shape responses to tourism
rowth, but these responses are not contained within a local system, but are as
nodal points in a network of national linkaes. 2f any system is perceived as a
network, then the network responds in manners determined by the number of
communication routes, the density of traffic those routes carry, the direction of
traffic flows, the centrality of individual players and their relationship to centre
and periphery, and the 8uality of information and knowlede existin in the
network. =ocal chaotic structures thus create tensions in a wider network, but
the network may create boundaries that constrain the complexity. Thus &T's
may row and collapse within a wider system of tourism plannin and
promotion. 2n short, while the pioneerin work of 3aulkner and his colleaues
is of importance in shapin our understandin of tourism systems, the
complexities may be yet even more complex than that initially envisaed M with
systems bein like the proverbial &ussian dolls wherein each contains mirror
imaes embedded one within the other.
,(9(,(N%(S
/lexrod, &. L Cohen, .. Harnessing Complexity: Organiational Implications
of a Scientific !rontier" New ForkK The 3ree Jress.
##%H /nne Zahra and Chris &yan
;yrne, -. (%44<). Complexity T#eory an$ t#e Social Sciences: %n Intro$uction"
=ondonK &outlede.
Cast, :. =. (%44?). Complexification. =ondonK /bacus.
-onahue, :. (%444). C#aos an$ !ractal &#enomena. /vailable online at
httpCCwww.lobal.netCpubCcamelotCchaosCchaos.htm.
Idar, -. /. L Nisbet, =. (%44H). / matter of chaos Msome issues for
hospitality business. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality 'anagement" < (#)K H@4.
3aulkner, ;. (#$$$). BThe 3uture ain+t what it used to be+K Copin with Chane,
Turbulence and -isasters in Tourism &esearch and -estination
.anaement, 2nauural Jrofessorial =ecture, %5 /uust, #$$$
*riffith University M *old Coast.
3aulkner, ;. L &ussell, &. (%445). Chaos and Complexity in TourismK 2n search
of a new perspective. &acific Tourism (e)ie*+ %, 4>@%$#.
3aulkner, ;. L &ussell, &. (#$$$). Turbulence, Chaos and Complexity in
Tourism "ystems9 / &esearch -irection for the New .illennium. 2n
3aulkner, &., .oscardo, * L =aws, I. Tourism in t#e ,1
st
Century:
-essons from .xperience" =ondonK Continuum.
3aulkner, ;. L 6ikulov, ". (#$$%). 7atherine washed out one day, back on
track the nextK a post@mortem of a tourism disaster. Tourism
'anagement" ## (?)K >>%@>??.
*lieck, :. (%4<<). C#aos: 'a/ing a 0e* Science" New ForkK Cardinal ;ook@
William Aeinemann.
Aayles, N. 7. (%44%). C#aos an$ Or$er. ChicaoK University of Chicao Jress.
Aayllar, ;. L *riffin, T. (#$$E). The Jrecinct IxperienceK a
phenomenoloical approach. Tourism 'anagement #H(?).
:ennins, :. (#$$%). Tourism (esearc#. .ilton NueenslandK :ohn Wiley L
"ons.
=ee, :. (%44$). C#aos T#eory an$ 1usiness &lanning" .elbourneK "chwart!
L Wilkinson.
=ewin, &. (%44>). Complexity: -ife at t#e .$ge of C#aos" New ForkK Collier
;ooks.
.c7ercher, ;. (%444). / Chaos /pproach to Tourism. Tourism 'anagement+
#$, ?#E@?>?.
Nilson, T. A. (%44E). C#aos 'ar/eting2 Ho* to 3in in a Tur4ulent 3orl$"
=ondonK .c*aw Aill.
Jatton, .. N. (%44$). 5ualitati)e .)aluation an$ (esearc# 'et#o$s" "econd
Idition. Newbury JarkK "ae Jublications.
&T'NZ, (#$$?). &T' &esponse to NZT" #$%$. Unpublished Workin Japer
&yan, C. L "immons, -. (%444). Towards a tourism research stratey for New
Zealand, Tourism 'anagement #$(>)K>$E@>%#.
Complexity in Tourism Structures 17
&yan, C. L Zahra, /. (#$$?). The politics of brandin cities and reionsK the
case of New Zealand, pp 54@%%$ in (eds) N. .oran, /., Jritchard
and &. Jride, 6estination 1ran$ing: Creating t#e uni7ue $estination
proposition+ 'xfordK ;utterworth Aeinemann. "econd edition.
&ussell, &. L 3aulkner, ;. (%444). .overs and "hakersK Chaos .akers in
Tourism -evelopment. Tourism 'anagement #$(?)K ?%%@?#>.
&ussell, &. L 3aulkner, ;. (#$$?). Intrepreneurship, Chaos and the Tourism
/rea =ifecycle. %nnals of Tourism (esearc#" >%(>)K EEH@E54.
"impson, 7. (#$$>). /nd now for the Next Aundred FearsK /n /ssessment of
National Tourism Jolicy 2ssues in New Zealand. &acific Tourism
(e)ie*: %n Inter$isciplinary Journal. H(#)K %%4@%><.
Takai@Tokunaa, N. (#$$?). / Nualitative /pproach to Tourist IxperienceK /
Case of :apanese Tourists in ;ritain. Japer presented at the %$
th
/JT/ Conference, -epartment of 2nternational Tourism,
8lo4aliation an$ Tourism (esearc#: .ast meets 3est" Naasaki
2nternational University, "asebo, Naasaki, :apan.
Auer, ;. L &yan, C. (#$$E). -estination imae, romance and place experience
M an application of 2ntimacy Theory in Tourism. Tourism
'anagement #H(?).
Turner, =.W. L Witt, ".3. (#$$%) 3orecastin tourism usin univariate and
multivariate structural time series, Tourism .conomics. 5(#)K %>E@
%?<.
Waldrop, .. .. (%44#). Complexity. =ondonK 6ikin.
Foun, T. &. (%44%). Chaos and "ocial ChaneK .etaphysics of the
Jostmodern. Social Science Journal" #<(>)K #<4@>$H.
Zahra, /. L &yan C. (forthcomin) National Tourism 'ranisations M politics,
functions and formK / New Zealand Case "tudy. Tourism (ecreation
(esearc#"
"ubmitted 3eb >
rd
, #$$E
/ccepted .ay E
th
, #$$E
&efereed anonymously