سهامداران تعیین کننده برای تجزیه و تحلیل امکان سنجی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|124||2009||23 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 11505 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 41–63
Most techniques for stakeholder identification and salience in the pre-start up phase of a tourism development are not systematic in approach. This paper explores the utility of a systematic stakeholder analysis within a feasibility analysis. For a more inclusive assessment of stakeholder salience in the context of sustainable development, balancing the managerial lack of intrinsic stakeholder commitment, a third party perspective is added to the evaluation process. Contributing to the final evaluation of a development proposal, the coding scheme provides practitioners with parameters for stakeholder identification and salience. While application of the theory bears limitations in quantitative measurement, the results suggest that systematic stakeholder analysis is beneficial and useful in the context of feasibility analysis.
Stakeholder and collaboration theory is often referenced in the literature on sustainable tourism development. The argument is in order to produce equitable and environmentally sustainable tourism developments multiple stakeholders must be involved in the process of planning and implementing the project. At the site level, however, tourism developers have few theory-based or analytic resources to assist in achieving stakeholder involvement. They need a planning framework that supports both the ideals of sustainability and the practical application of policy. Feasibility analysis offers a potential framework for planning and assessing a proposed development including identifying stakeholders. At the pre-development phase, most planners attempt to identify potential stakeholders, producing often unsatisfactory results. While the literature announces stakeholder involvement as a vital aspect of pre-start up planning, most of the techniques for identifying and assessing stakeholder orientation at this stage are not theory driven or systematic in approach. This paper, therefore, turns to the stakeholder theory literature for an identification and salience typology and then, through field research, explores the utility of this systematic stakeholder analysis within feasibility analysis context.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The purpose of this study was to explore the benefits of incorporating stakeholder theory and application to the feasibility analysis of a natural resource attraction. One advantage of this application was the ability in the pre-start up phase of a development to gain multiple perspectives on stakeholder salience. While the original intention of stakeholder theories like Mitchell et al’s (1997) is to explain the managerial perspective, for sustainable developments this limitation can leave social and environmental concerns underrepresented. Widening the perspective does mitigate some of the managerial bias. Determining stakeholder orientation using the three attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency is beneficial in a number of ways. First, the three attributes provide common language based on defined characteristics with which multiple project leaders can discuss stakeholder issues. Second, in practical terms, the systematic stakeholder analysis clearly delimits stakeholders. The theory identifies and classifies stakeholders based on the presence or absence of three attributes. The structured process of assigning attributes provides a justifiable and definable boundary for distinguishing between stakeholders and currently disinterested stakeholders. And third, the model allows for informed predictions, which are particularly valuable for a feasibility analysis, where stakeholder relationships are often undetermined. Mitchel et al’s (1997) theory defines three elements of salience, each of which can be isolated for the purposes of predicting the nature of a potential stakeholder relationship. This study examines the application of the model for one specific purpose, determining stakeholder salience relevant to the feasibility analysis of a natural resource attraction. Within this context, the model effectively provides a pragmatic typology with a justifiable measure of stakeholder salience. This paper also suggests that a combination of strategic planning and stakeholder theory is a possible solution to some of the challenges of implementing the ideals of sustainable tourism development. While a feasibility analysis embodies the elements of strategic planning, such as an emphasis on goal and target specification, quantitative analysis and prediction of environment, identification and evaluation of alternative policy actions, and an evaluation of means against ends, the incorporation of stakeholder theory can empower various interests in the planning process. The interests of other entities concerned with social/cultural and environmental impacts will thus balance the managerial lack of intrinsic stakeholder commitment, which can lead most strategic plans to focus on financial returns. Given the multiplicity of stakeholders groups and stakeholder interests reflected in the study results, this study shows the benefits of applying stakeholder analysis to feasibility analysis. Considering the wide recognition that sustainable tourism must encompass various and often competing interests, it is not surprising that current planning literature rejects the notion of a homogenous public interest (Lane 2005). With multiple stakeholders identified and involved, the tourism project stands a better chance of achieving the triple bottom line. Further research should incorporate the strategies and methodologies of facilitating collaborative planning at the pre-start up stage. There is at this point, however, no definitive critical study of a pre-start up feasibility analysis. Could, for instance, a suitable framework exist for feasibility analysis that would assist planners in facilitating collaborative decision-making before major decisions have already been made? Does feasibility analysis distinguish between operational and financial feasibility, and long-term viability versus initial revenue surpluses? How does feasibility analysis compare with other planning techniques concerned with sustainability? Considering the call for implementation strategies for sustainable tourism, further research in planning at the site level and at the pre-business plan stage is needed. Understanding the role of feasibility analysis in decentralized planning, integrative and intersectoral planning, and facilitating collaboration will address some of the challenges of implementing sustainable tourism development.