Complex Systems in Tourism

In this paper we explore the application of studies in the science of complexity on tourism destination development. Accident of history, positive feedback, increasing returns, social multipliers, lock-in effects, non-linearities, path dependency, evolution, self-organization, emergence, outbreaks and catastrophe are all phenomena that can be used to analyze tourism development and sustainability issues. There are a few important implications of studying complexity for tourism destination development. First, equilibrium outcomes can be unstable and/or inefficient. Second, decomposing the tourism system into parts, for examination purposes, is not possible. Third, predictability is very hard and requires nonlinear techniques.

The objective of this paper is to explore the implications and contributions of the complexity literature on tourism destination development. Accident of history, positive feedback, increasing returns, social multipliers, lock-in effects, non-linearities, path dependency, evolution, self-organization, emergence, outbreaks and catastrophe are all phenomena that have been used to explore social interaction in the emerging field of complexity. We believe that these phenomena have direct application to tourism. Understanding the nature of development and its evolution will not only aid tourism management in control and planning, but also the public authorities who are responsible for developing the infrastructure, maintaining environmental quality and sustainability.

Durfaul (1997) defines "complexity" as a system, which "exhibits some type of order as a result of the interaction of many heterogeneous objects." The vision that tourism systems are complex evolving processes is not new in tourism research. Butler (1980) the architect who formalized the evolution of a destination as a dynamic process states: "There is little doubt that tourist areas are dynamic, that they evolve and change over time." (1980, 5). Christaller (1963) was one of the earlier supporters of the evolutionary approach to tourism destination development. According to Christaller, a place is occupied initially with a small number of painters who are searching for a quiet place to paint. However, painters attract other artists, artists attract tourists, tourists attract entrepreneurs and on goes the process of development. Restaurants, hotels and commercialization accelerate in development and the location eventually evolves and becomes "divorced from the geographic environment." ^[1] The above description indicates an evolving complex system. The initial visitation of painters in the quiet destination instigates a propagation mechanism that leads to positive feedback, increasing returns, and the system eventually locks-into a particular path that becomes self-organizing. Thus the typical course of evolutionary development as described by Christaller fits well into the complexity literature.^[2] Plog (1974) was another important contributor who suggested that tourism destinations evolve over time in terms of types and number of tourists it attracts^{. [3]} Plog (1987) has argued that allocentrics, people who desire adventure, and seek something out of the norm will be the first to visit a destination. Then they will:^[4] "introduce the product to near allocentrics, and then the near allocentrics will "pass" the products to the mid-centrics, each group becoming a mover and a shaker for the personality type that is a little more conservative in its consumer behavior than the group which passed the product on" pp. 212. Plog (1987) updating his psychographic survey found that changing demographics over time alter the destinations structure, development and focus. Destinations exhibit a dynamic process and change in order to adapt and match their changing environment.^[5] Although the above literature on tourism destination development provides a foundation of exploration into the area of evolution and development, there have not been specific models of the development process of tourist destinations (Butler (19993)). We argue that the literature on complexity can provide important foundations on modeling the process.^[6] Complexity can be used to model and hence explain the evolution, development and dynamics of destinations over time. Complexity can provide answers to many unsettled questions.^[7] How do small initial changes in tourism conditions lead to the popularity of certain destinations? Is the development process of tourism destinations path dependent? Is the positive feedback mechanism and increasing returns the norm in the tourism sector or does the system stabilize into the stage of saturation? Why do certain destinations become strange "attractors" relative to other similar destinations? Why is it that certain destinations attract a particular type of visitor consistently? Can this "barrier" of attraction based on psychographic and economic characteristics be broken or is the system in a hysteresis? What are the dynamics of maintaining sustainable development? Furthermore, what are the implications in terms of the efficiency of the system in allocating resources, as well as sustainability issues when these dynamic changes take place? Butler (1993) indicates that very little work has been devoted towards modeling environmental and developmental issues in tourism research.^[8]

We start this paper by describing in great detail the components of an evolving complex tourism system. First, we discuss accidents of history as they relate to tourism. Next we examined social interactions and positive feedback loops yielding increasing returns to tourism destinations. We find that tourism destinations become locked into a particular path, which is not always efficient. From such an environment, tourism destinations eventually emerge and self organize into a functioning structure. In terms of public policy, we find that complex systems, such as tourism, have a very important message to deliver the management of tourism resources and to public policy makers. Interactions among various individuals can create a multiple self -organizing and reinforcing behavior at the aggregate level. This aggregate behavior, although internally consistent, could stabilize in an undesirable steady state, one that may be unsustainable. High levels of "social pathologies" or even inferior technologies could be possible outcomes.^[9] The consequences of policies can be highly unpredictable and at times impotent. We find that tourism development models contain threshold levels beyond which epidemic models arise. Furthermore, it is possible that catastrophic events may take place when tourism development parameters change. It is well understood in the tourism literature that nature's beauty can be destroyed easily by an epidemic.

One working paper is almost complete and ready to be presented in international conferences. The title of the working paper is “Tourism as an Evolving Complex System" by Lian Dumouchel and Panagiotis Tsigaris, April 2000.

Arthur, W.B., (1988), "Self-Reinforcing Mechanism in Economic", in The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, edited by P.W. Anderson, K.J. Arrow, and D. Pines, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Arthur, W.B. (1990), "Positive Feedback in the Economy" Scientific America, February, 92-99.

Arthur, W.B. (1994), "Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, vol. 84(2), pp. 407-411.

Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S.N. , and D.A. Lane, 1997, "The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II", Proceedings Volume in the Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Addison-Wesley.

Brock, W., "Chaos and Complexity in Economic and Financial Science" in Acting Under Uncertainty: Multidisciplinary Conceptions, G. von Furstenberg, ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1990, Chapter 17.

Butler, R.W. (1980), "The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle Of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources," Canadian Geographer, vol. 24, 1, pp. 5-12.

Butler, R.W., (1985), "Evolution of Tourism in the Scottish Highlands", Annals of Tourism Research, 12 (3),: pp. 371-92.

Butler, R.W. , (1993), "Tourism: An Evolutionary Perspective," in Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning and Managing, edited by J. N. Nelson, Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo, 27-43.

Casti, J. L., (1994) "Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise", 1sr ed., HarperPerennial edition.

Christaller, W. (1963) "Some Considerations of Tourism Location in Europe", Paper of the Regional Science Association 12: 95-105.

Cohen E., 1972, "Towards a Sociology of International Tourism, Social Research, 39, pp. 164-82.

Cohen, E., 1978, "Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, 6, pp. 18-35.

Durfaul S., 1997, "What Should Policymakers Know About Economic Complexity" The Washington Quarterly, also at http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Working-Papers/97-10-080.html.

Epstein, J.M., 1997, "Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology, and Social Science," Santa Fee Institute, Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Addison - Wesley Publishing Company

Lee Choong-Ki and S. Kang (1998), "Measuring earnings inequality and median earnings in the tourism industry, Tourism Management. vol. 19(4), pp. 341-348.

Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Bass, F.M., 1990, "New Product Diffusion models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research," Journal of Marketing, vol. 54,1, pp.1-26.

Plog, S. (1974), "Why destinations areas rise and fall in popularity", Cornell Hotel Restaurant and Administration Quarterly, pp. 55-58.

Plog, S. (1987), "Understanding Psychographics in Tourism Research", in J. Ritchie and C. Goelder (eds) Travel Tourism and Hospitality Research, New York: Wiley: 203-14.

Przeclawski K. (1993), "Tourism as the Subject of Interdisciplinary Research", in Tourism Research edited by D.G. Pearce , R. Butler, Routledge, chapter 2, pp. 9-19.

Swinglehurst, E. (1998), "Face to Face: The Effects of Tourism on Societies Past and Present," in Global Tourism, Chapter 6, 2^nd ed., Edited by W. F. Theobald, Butterworth-Heinemann-Oxford.

Tremblay, P., (1998), "The Economic Organization of Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (4), pp. 837-859.

Tribe J., (1997), "The Indiscipline of Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 24(3), pp. 638-657.

Echtner C.M., and T.B., Jamal (1997), "The Disciplinary Dilemma of Tourism Studies," vol. 24(4), pp. 868-884.

Walddrop, M., (1992), "Complexity: The Emerging Science in the Edge of Order and Chaos," Simon and Shuster, London.

Wolfe, R.I., (1952) "Wasaga Beach: the Divorce from the Geographic Environment", The Canadian Geographer, 2: 57-66.

Wolfe, R.I., (1966) "Recreational Travel: The New Migration", The Canadian Geographer, 1: 1-14

[1] Wolfe (1952) used the above phrase to describes how a traditional cottage resort, located around natural beauty, evolves into a commercial self-organized amusement-dominated center.

[2] Christaller's explanation for tourism destination development is based on the Mediterranean region and after the postwar period.

[3] Plog arranged various destinations, ranging from unexplored to established tourism sites, on a spectrum of types of tourists, ranging from allocentric to psychocentric correspondingly.

[4] Cohen (1972) characterized these tourists as drifters or explorers.

[5] Butler (1993) and Plog (1987) argue that the type of tourist changes as the destination evolves. However, care has to be given to causality and more so in the future. We believe that destinations evolve as the type of tourists change.

[6] "Complexity" has already started to revolutionize economic theory. Basically, complexity adds another dimension to the existing decentralized neoclassical economic decision-making process in that it considers interactions between economic actors as central to the process. Social interaction between economic agents creates order and self-organization. Most economic models allow self-interested individuals to interact only through the market clearing prices. However in many decisions, individual actors rely on opinions and decisions of others. This type of conformity and social behavior has become important in explaining economic problems. (Arthur, Durlauf and Lane (1997))

[7] It is interesting to note that the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), founded in 1984 as a multidisciplinary, independent, private research and education center, was developed to examine the emerging science of "Complexity". Santa Fe's mission is devoted to the analysis and spreading of new collaborative, multidisciplinary projects and methodologies. This approach breaks the barriers between the" traditional" disciplines and encourages applications of the theory. Tourism, on the other hand, has always been a subject of interdisciplinary research (Przeclawski (1993), Tribe (1997), Echtner and Jamal (1997)) and hence the institute might also benefit from studying tourism research and its evolution through time. Tribe (1997) rejects the idea that tourism is a discipline on its own.

[8] He states in the section of modeling the process: "There is a growing literature on tourism development, ranging from… but relatively few provide specific models of the development process of tourist destinations"

[9] The market system in allocating resources is over powered by social elements.

Complex Systems in Tourism, Part 2 of 2

Project Leaders: Dr. Peter Tsigaris/Ms. Lian Dumouchel