Beyond current boundaries in tourism governance Co-designing alternative futures with more-than-human others

Resumo

Objectives | This work aims to confront current boundaries in tourism governance, exploring alternatives to dominant anthropocentric governance practices and frameworks. The term governance, “long used as a synonym for ‘government’” (Walters, 2004, p. 27), alludes to forms of governing in which public and private boundaries ‘have become blurred’ (Jessop, 1997; Rhodes, 1996; Stoker, 1998; Walters, 2004). For Walters (2004), as societies complexify “political authority has become polycentric and multileveled” (p. 27), hence problems “are more intractable and less amenable to ‘top-down’ or ‘linear’ solutions” (p. 40). Acknowledging broader critics of the concept (e.g. Walters, 2004; Rhodes, 1996), governance can represent a political response towards a more “relational and associational understanding of power” (p. 33). Even though “numerous problems associated with conventional tourism development have been documented over the years” (Fletcher et al., 2021, p. 707), policy and governance failures in addressing them persist (Guia, 2021; Matteucci et al., 2021). This urges us to find solutions. Thus, this research inquires how posthumanism can inform governance frameworks by exploring its transformative potential in co-creating non-anthropocentric solutions for tourism governance.

Methodology | To ensure tourism accounts for socio-ecological limits altogether require us to go beyond conventional governance archetypes, embracing more-than-human ethics and praxis. Thus, the research employs a multi-method qualitative methodology to understand, practically and in-depth, the implications of posthumanist co-design within governance. In their systematic literature review of collaborative governance in tourism, Sentanu et al. (2023) do not mention any collaborative project with a non-anthropocentric or posthuman perspective, which confirms the necessity of advancing it, as this inquiry aspires to. By drawing on collaboration, tourism co-design entails “re-imagining and challenging current tourism assumptions” (Duedhal, 2021, p. 452) and “working towards shared goals” (p. 444). In this, a posthuman stance facilitates collaborative knowledge generation and the development of governance models recognising the interdependence of human and non-human entities in tourism.

Main Results and Contributions | Addressing both theoretical and empirical gaps in the literature, this research critically questions current tourism governance. There is a growing interest in (i) the implementation of more collaborative and participative practices in tourism as in social research more broadly, and in (ii) the integration of perspectives which embrace more-than-human ethics, such as posthumanism. By fostering collaborative governance mechanisms embedded in posthuman principles, more equitable and sustainable decision-making processes can emerge. The research also contributes to growing trends and bodies of literature on critical tourism studies, by advancing pioneering investigations which transcend traditional anthropocentrism and confront the ethical and practical implications of posthumanism within tourism.

Limitations | This study's limitations include potential obstacles in implementing posthumanist co-design in diverse cultural and geographical contexts. Balancing the varying interests of stakeholders, including non-human entities, presents practical challenges such as the difficulty of “including non-human voices” and of “flattening difference” (Ferrando, 2012, p. 13; citing Luft 2009), while achieving consensus within the co-design process may be complex. Focusing on low-density territories and regions, the work does not assess this approach’s relevance in contexts other-than-rural, namely urban areas. Similarly, the review is not exhaustive, and there may be important works omitted.

Conclusions | Seeking to reframe tourism governance through a posthumanist lens, this research investigate co-design potential, as a tool for activate alternative futures and facilitate the encountering of more holistic proposals. Although, preparatory work is necessary to understand the focus area and guarantee collaboration at all stages and levels, without disregarding important instances at stake. If the existence of a common vision and coordination among all actors is deemed essential, the lack of engagement/participation, the lack of trust or the lack of capacity and political power among others are all considered important limitations in the implementation of collaborative projects (Sentanu et al., 2023). Recognising issues and limitations, the potential of posthumanist co-design in contributing to the transformation of tourism governance must be explored, in the face of contemporary challenges.

References

Duedahl, E. (2021). Co-designing emergent opportunities for sustainable development on the verges of inertia, sustaining tourism and re-imagining tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 46(4), 441–456. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2020.1814520

Ferrando, F. (2012) "Towards a Posthumanist Methodology. A Statement." Frame. Journal For Literary Studies, 25/1, Utrecht University, 9-18. 

Fletcher, R., Blanco-Romero, A., Blázquez-Salom, M., Cañada, E., Murray Mas, I., & Sekulova, F. (2021). Pathways to post-capitalist tourism. Tourism Geographies, 25(2–3), 707–728. DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2021.1965202

Guia, J. (2021). Conceptualizing justice tourism and the promise of posthumanism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(2–3), 503–520. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1771347

Matteucci, X., Nawijn, J., & von Zumbusch, J. (2022). A new materialist governance paradigm for tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(1), 169–184. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1924180

Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 561–581. DOI: 10.1080/096922997347751

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x 

Sentanu, I.G.E.P.S., Haryono, B.S., Zamrudi, Z. and Praharjo, A. (2023). Challenges and successes in collaborative tourism governance: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Tourism Research, 33, 3302. DOI: 10.54055/ejtr.v33i.2669

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2451.00106

Walters, W. (2004). Some Critical Notes on “Governance”. Studies in Political Economy, 73(1), 27–46. DOI: 10.1080/19187033.2004.11675150