Week 8 Discussion- Sustainability and Politics

Topic: Based on the articles you have read for Week 8, please discuss the impacts of politics on decisions and actions related to sustainability (elaborate on at least two points). Please refer to concepts from the readings to support your points.

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Politics and sustainable tourism: The case of Cyprus

Anna Farmaki a, *, Levent Altinay b, 1, David Botterill b, Sarina Hilke b

a School of Business and Management, University of Central Lancashire Cyprus, 12-14 University Avenue, Pyla, 7080, Larnaka, Cyprus
b Oxford School of Hospitality Management, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK

h i g h l i g h t s

� Sustainable tourism implementation in complex political contexts is problematic.
� Strong influence of politics on sustainable tourism development and implementation.
� External axes of power shape the political milieu of tourism.
� Interface between the political system and social environment is influential.
� Sustainability discourse requires a sophisticated approach regarding ‘power’.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 10 June 2014
Accepted 22 September 2014
Available online 11 October 2014

Keywords:
Politics
Power
Sustainable tourism
Planning
Development
Cyprus

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ357 24812121; fax:
E-mail addresses: afarmaki@uclan.ac.uk, anna

laltinay@brookes.ac.uk (L. Altinay), p0076943@b
12083027@brookes.ac.uk (S. Hilke).

1 Tel.: þ44 (0)1865 483832; fax: þ44 (0)1865 4838

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.019
0261-5177/

a b s t r a c t

Cyprus’ volatile political environment lends an interesting case for enhancing knowledge on the politics
of tourism. The importance of tourism for the island’s economy makes the study of the political in-
fluences on the new-found goal of sustainable tourism development imperative. This paper investigates
the political factors influencing sustainable tourism implementation in Cyprus. Analysis is informed by
Lukes’ conceptualisation of power relations. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with key stake-
holders, the findings suggest that sustainable tourism implementation continues to be problematic,
given Cyprus’ complex political context, which is highly susceptible to external axes of power. The strong
influence of the socio-cultural environment on the politics driving sustainable tourism inhibits its
effective implementation. This paper proposes a theoretical framework and a methodology for studying
the politics of sustainable tourism development.

1. Introduction

There are few messier political environments worldwide from
which to advance knowledge on the politics of tourism than
Cyprus. Centuries of contested national identity and occupations by
political dynasties and colonial powers, form a staggeringly com-
plex political milieu on the island. Cyprus is a full member of the
European Union (EU) but in practice only the south of the island,
with its strong economic and cultural ties to Greece, is active within
the EU. Since 1974, the island has been divided by a UN buffer zone.
The north of the island forms the Turkish Cypriot State, recognised
only by Turkey and highly dependent on Ankara. Recent economic
activity in southern Cyprus has been significantly bolstered by

þ357 24812120.
@farmaki.net (A. Farmaki),
rookes.ac.uk (D. Botterill),

78.

capital investments from Russia, but in 2012 Cyprus’ economy was
badly hit by its extensive exposure to the recession-hit economy of
Greece, forcing the country to seek emergency help from interna-
tional lenders. Additionally, the island’s proximity to the Middle
East makes it a vital NATO base from which to monitor de-
velopments in the region. Thus, the political influences felt on this
island are distilled from several axes of power including the multi-
national NATO Western alliance, supra-national states in the form
of the EU and the Russian Federation and the neighbouring nation
states of Greece and Turkey. Given this political context, it is hardly
surprising that tourism on the island has also passed through tur-
bulent times. In this volatile economic and political environment,
the spectre of the stable influence of sustainable development
increased in credence on both sides of the island, albeit for quite
different reasons. The specific conditions we refer to are laid out
below in a rationale for the focus of this article on the politics of the
implementation of sustainable tourism on Cyprus.

As southern Cyprus relied on mass tourism for its recovery, it
experienced steady growth with reaching 2,700,000 arrivals in

mailto:afarmaki@uclan.ac.uk

mailto:anna@farmaki.net

mailto:laltinay@brookes.ac.uk

mailto:p0076943@brookes.ac.uk

mailto:12083027@brookes.ac.uk

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.019&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.019

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190 179

2001. In the subsequent decade, fluctuating and steadily declining
tourist arrivals and revenues have marked the performance of the
industry, with numbers dropping below 2.0 million in 2009
(Country Profiler, 2011). However, in 2011 the first significant in-
crease since 2011 occurred (9.2% in comparison to 2010), sparking
optimism in the industry. This positive trend continued in 2012
with an increase of 3%, despite the economic crisis and political
uncertainty (CYSTAT, 2013).

On the other hand, northern Cyprus had to cope with the con-
sequences of being a non-recognised state and was forced into
acute financial and political dependency on Turkey (Alipour& Kilic,
2005). This affected not only the promotion of northern Cyprus, but
also its attractiveness for foreign investment and employment
(Altinay, Altinay, & Bicak, 2002; Altinay & Bowen, 2006). Declining
tourist arrivals, continuing economic decline and a shrinking
market were the damaging consequences (Alipour & Kilic, 2005).
Despite these challenging circumstances, the tourist industry in
northern Cyprus succeeded in developing and is today one of its
major economic engines. In 2012, the tourism industry reached a
net income of $459.4 million, created 12,053 jobs and 1,166,186
tourist arrivals were registered. In comparison to 2003, net income
achieved an increase of 157% from $178.8 million to $459.4 million
(TCRN Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture, 2012).
Although tourism development has not been as successful as in
southern Cyprus in terms of volume, it is argued that tourism
development in northern Cyprus holds enormous potential as the
area remains one of the few unspoiled corners in the Mediterra-
nean (Altinay et al., 2002; Yasarata, Altinay, Burns, & Okumus,
2010).

The underlying circumstances of tourism development on both
sides of the island have resulted in a shared imperative to progress
sustainable tourism, shaped however by very different sets of is-
sues in each side of the island. In southern Cyprus, the pursuit of
sustainable tourism has entered official government policy as a
response to market volatility, increasing environmental con-
sciousness in consumer markets and previously damaging devel-
opment regimes. The story in northern Cyprus is markedly
different, as the drive for sustainable tourism emerges from private
sector players seeking to capitalise on perceived environmental
quality gains, unintended consequences of its political isolation.
Thus, in both parts of the island there are equally compelling, but
quite different, justifications for the implementation of sustainable
tourism. The extent of success or failure in implementing sustain-
able tourism on the island of Cyprus is, as yet, unreported in the
literature.

Reports of research into the political factors influencing the
development and implementation of sustainable tourism are rare,
an exception being Yasarata et al. (2010) who argue that an
important challenge to the research community in seeking to un-
derstand the trajectory of sustainable development is to document
the political ideologies and power structures of destinations. As a
response to this challenge and the general goal of promoting
rigorous, context specific analysis of the politics of tourism, this
article aims to make two distinct contributions to the under-
standing of the politics of tourism. First, in the complex political
context of Cyprus we will show how the implementation of sus-
tainable tourism continues to be highly problematic. In our analysis
we draw on Lukes’ (2005) conceptualisation of power relations and
exemplify its application to the politics of sustainable tourism.
From our study, we propose a general set of mechanisms that act to
enable and constrain the implementation of sustainable tourism.
These are offered as a theoretical frame for further studies of sus-
tainable tourism in complex political contexts. Second, we will
make explicit amethodology for studying the politics of sustainable
tourism at the destination level that incorporates key concepts

from the extant literature with empirical fieldwork in a novel data
analysis framework.

The article begins with a brief overview of tourism development
in Cyprus. Two relevant areas of the literature are then reviewed.
First, the literature on the role of politics in tourism policymaking is
discussed. Second, the inhibiting factors and challenges identified
in the literature in relation to sustainable tourism implementation
are reported. The methodology adopted in the study is then
described, followed by the study findings. In our findings, the
particular political challenges inhibiting sustainable tourism
development and implementation in Cyprus are exposed by
comparing and contrasting the views of informants from northern
and southern Cyprus.

2. Tourism development in Cyprus

Prior to its independence from Great Britain in 1960, tourism
development in Cyprus was minimal and mainly concentrated in
the Troodos mountains. Acknowledging the potential benefits of
tourism, the newly-founded Cyprus government initiated a tourism
development plan by concentrating facilities in the northern
coastal towns of Kyrenia and Famagusta. Tourist arrivals grew
rapidly and by 1973 the island was accepting approximately
240000 tourists (Ayres, 2000). However, tensions between the
Greek and Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of the island escalated when
Turkish troops intervened in response to a military coup that was
backed by Greece, leading to the partition of the island in 1974. As a
result two administrations developed: the Republic of Cyprus e an
internationally recognised state and member of the EU e in the
south and the Turkish Cypriot administration in the north, which
remains a non-recognised ‘de facto’ state, economically and politi-
cally highly dependent on Turkey.

2.1. Southern Cyprus

From the perspective of the south the 1974 war had a crippling
effect on the Cyprus tourism industry, as the majority of tourism
development was concentrated in the northern part of the island
(Sharpley, 2003). The need to relocate tourism development to the
south of the Green Line became imperative and so investment in-
centives, targeted economic policies, institutional restructuring and
policy reformations were deployed (Ioannides, 1992). The southern
part of Cyprus became a well-known sea and sun destination,
accepting by the end of the 1990s more than 2 million tourists
annually and almostV1927.7 million in tourism revenue. Attracting
tourists mainly from European countries, southern Cyprus’ target
markets are the UK, Germany, Greece, Sweden and Norway with
80% of all tourists arriving between April and October. In recent
years, Russia has become an important new market.

The rapid growth and reliance on mass tourism yielded several
negative effects including environmental degradation, unskilled
foreign labour, perishing cultural identity and a persistent sea and
sun image that are considered counter-productive to product
diversification and initiatives to extend out-of-season visitation
(Clerides & Pashourtidou, 2007). By the early 2000s, it was clear
that the tourism product of southern Cyprus had reached stag-
nation and was further being threatened by emerging competition
and changing tourist needs. With tourist arrivals fluctuating
throughout the last decade, tourism authorities in southern
Cyprus highlighted the need to adopt a more sustainable devel-
opment strategy to distribute economic benefits to local commu-
nities, extend seasonality, minimise environmental pressures on
the coastline and preserve traditional culture (CTO, 2010).
Following the euro debt crisis and the exposure of the frailty of
south Cyprus banks, the need to further boost the economy has

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190180

been highlighted (BBC, 2013). As a result, economic development
focus shifted back onto mass tourism growth and several scholars
have questioned the role that sustainable tourism will play in the
near future in the attempt of the government to grow its economy
through tourism.

2.2. Northern Cyprus

Whilst southern Cyprus is struggling to counteract the problems
of mass tourism development, northern Cyprus is faced with the
practicality of overcoming its political isolation and forging a
distinct Cypriot destination offering. With a small internal market
and an inability to attract foreign investment due to the economic
and political isolation (Ioannides & Apostolopoulos, 1999), tourism
development in northern Cyprus has been less intensive.
Table 1outlines the comparison between Southern and Northern
Tourism Industries.

Whilst southern Cyprus attracted approximately 2.4 million
tourists in 2012 and an estimated V1927.7 million contribution to
the economy, the northern part of the island had barely 257,000
international tourist arrivals (primarily from Britain and Germany),
earning US$459.4 million in tourism revenue. Although tourist
demand has doubled since 1995, the tourism industry in northern
Cyprus is faced with severe challenges. Northern Cyprus’ airports
are only accessible through Turkey, significantly increasing journey
times. Consequently, there is heavy reliance on the Turkish market
with 904,505 arrivals originating from Turkey. Sustainable Tourism
Development is high on the agenda of Northern Cyprus Tourism
Industry, tourism master plan advocating that tourism should be
developed in an economically, environmentally and socially sus-
tainable way (Altinay et al., 2002). However, with 23 casinos based
in northern Cyprus, gambling has become an important sub-sector
of tourism that has the effect of shortening the length of stay,
generally considered detrimental to a healthy tourism sector
(Altinay et al., 2002). Other challenges include a shortage of qual-
ified staff, a lack of a distinctive brand (as northern Cyprus is often
promoted alongside Turkey), and unplanned development along
the coast (Yasarata et al., 2010). Moreover, the lack of formal in-
stitutions and the absence of clear tourism policies give rise to fears
that political elites and the close cooperative relations with Turkey
are directing tourism development towards an unsustainable
pathway (Altinay & Hussain, 2005).

3. Literature review

In the following section the relationship of politics to tourism,
and in particular the role of power in tourism politics, is examined.

3.1. The role of politics in tourism policy making

The study of tourism and politics has been championed for
around 30 years. Richter’s (1989) pioneering research in tourism
and political science encouraged scholars in the social sciences to
investigate the politics of tourism. Hall’s (1994) application of

Table 1
Tourism Figures (2012): Comparison between Southern and Northern Cyprus.

Tourism policy

Southern Cyprus Sustainable development to distribute economic benefits to
local communities, extend seasonality, minimise environmental
pressures on the coastline and preserve traditional culture

Northern Cyprus Sustainable tourism development that is economically,
environmentally and socially sustainable

Sources: CTO (2013); TCRN, 2013.

political theory in tourism demonstrated the political dimensions
of tourism, and, in the last decade scholarship has increased vol-
ume. A review of the literature reveals three distinct categories of
research on tourism and politics: a) public policy and planning
analyses (Burns, 2004; Hall & Rusher, 2004; Krutwaysho &
Bramwell, 2010; Pechlaner & Tschurtschenthaler, 2003;
Stevenson, Airey,&Miller, 2008; Zhang, Chong,& Jenkins, 2002), b)
political economy and development studies (Bianchi, 2002;
Bramwell, 2011; Nelson, 2012; Nunkoo & Smith, 2013; Williams,
2004) and c) research on political stability and tourism (Causevic
& Lynch, 2013; Hall, Timothy, & Duval, 2004; Issa & Altinay,
2006; O’Brien, 2012).

According to Sofield (2003) the relationship between the state,
government and politics has been subsumed under economic or
sociological constructions rather than being considered in relation
to the political dimension. Yet, the important contribution of
tourism to economic development and its hegemonic value implies
that tourism is inextricably linked to politics (Hall, 2010;
Henderson, 2002). Studies linking tourism and politics have fore-
grounded specific perspectives such as environmental politics
(Backstrand, Khan, Kronsell, & Lovbrand, 2010; Bulkeley & Betsill,
2005; Duffy, 2006; Erkus-Ozturk & Eraydin, 2010; Paterson,
Humphreys, & Pettiford, 2003) and heritage politics (Dahles, 2002;
Harrison & Hitchcock, 2005; Reinfeld, 2003; Rkhter, 2004; Wang &
Bramwell, 2012) providing case studies of the varying contexts in
which tourism development occurs. The political intervention of
tourism as an agent of change at the global, regional and local scale
has also attracted considerable literature (Burns & Novelli, 2006;
Chang & Huang, 2004; Duffy & Moore, 2011; Teo & Li, 2003;
Woods, 2011; Zhu, 2012). Moreover, an expanding area of prac-
tical research on tourism politics has offered interesting insights
into specific destination contexts (Altinay & Bowen, 2006;
Chheang, 2008; Hazbun, 2008; Henderson, 2008; Kim, Timothy,
& Han, 2007; McLeod & Airey, 2007; Su & Teo, 2009; Yasarata
et al., 2010).

A recurrent theme in studies of the politics of tourism is the
concept of governance, with researchers giving increasing attention
to paradigms of power as they investigate relations among tourism
actors (Beritelli & Laesser, 2011; Bianchi, 2003; Bramwell & Lane,
2011; Bramwell & Meyer, 2007; Church & Coles, 2007; Dredge &
Pforr, 2008; Hall, 2007; 2010; 2011; Healey, 2006; Nyaupane &
Timothy, 2010; Menkhaus, 2007; Ruhanen, 2013). According to
Henderson (2003, p.98) “tourism is a highly political phenomenon
which extends beyond the sphere of formal government structures
and processes, if politics is conceived as being essentially about
power relations, and it is thus an underlying and indirect theme in
tourism research”. Indeed, tourism politics are argued to be about a
struggle of power, rules and authority over decision-making,
resource distribution and policymaking (Sofield, 2003) with
various interests at the local, regional and national level attempting
to influence the position of tourism in political agendas. Given the
multiplicity of actors involved in tourism development and the
fragmented nature of the tourism sector, the concept of power in
tourism needs to be further explored.

Intern.
Tourist arrivals

Tourism revenue Accommodation
units

Annual
occupancy rate

2.4 million V1927.7 million 824 62.5%

257,000 V342.9 million 159 44.1%

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190 181

“Power is clearly a key element in understanding how decisions
are made and why certain values are excluded from tourism
policy… in the absence of such acknowledgement,much tourism
research will continue to be blind to the critical role of argument
in the policy process and maintain its supposedly value-neutral
appraisal of tourism policy” (Hall & Jenkins; 1995, p.93).

Thus, the concept of power and stakeholder relations demands
particular attention in our study of Cyprus.

3.2. Power and stakeholder relations

Numerous researchers have attempted to conceptualise power
(Foucault,1982; Kaplan,1964; Lukes,1974, 2005; Parsons,1963), yet
as Doorne (1998) argues its definition is often anchored in specific
environments in which it is contextualised. Researchers have
related power to the concepts of authority, influence, manipulation,
coercion and force (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Lukes, 1974). Indeed,
the concept of power lies within the notions of domination, sub-
mission and subordination of governors and governed (Key, 1958)
in what Lasswell (1958), cited in Elliot (1983, p.378), called a
determination of “who gets what, when and how”. Arendt (1970)
claimed that power is based on consensus and is a collective ca-
pacity. Similarly, Haugaard (2002) stated that power can contribute
positively to social order as power is a product of social interaction.
The view that power is a relational effect, which is constantly
changing, is shared among several researchers (Beritelli & Laesser,
2011; Cheong & Miller, 2000; Foucault, 1978, 1980). Whilst power
has been considered one of the major concepts in social sciences, in
tourism it has been selectively investigated (Cheong&Miller, 2000;
Coles & Church, 2007; Hall, 2010; Sofield, 2003).

Sitting beneath the attempts of tourism researchers to engage
with power relations is the contest over the conceptualisation of
power (Hall, 2010). In this debate, the contribution of Lukes (2005)
is considered particularly influential. Hall (2010) provides the broad
antecedents to the formulation of Lukes’ dimensions, or faces, of
power inmaking the case for tourism researchers to consider issues
such as; who is controlling the legitimacy of the agenda, what is
happening behind decision making processes, the mobilisation of
bias and interests, and, however challenging it might seem, to study
non-action in decision making. These concerns, captured by Hall
(2010:203) in his discussion of the “second face of power”, are
important analytical devices that we adopt in this article in order to
better understand the situation faced by our respondents.

As Hall (2010) also reminds us, a focus on non-decision making
has invoked the Gramscian notion of hegemony that, in turn,
proved influential in shaping Lukes’ third dimension of power. The
idea that power might shape human processes in an unconscious
way to the point that it conceals people’s real interest is a central
tenet of Lukes’ third dimension, “A may exercise power over shape
B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also
exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining
his very wants” (Lukes, 2005:27). In our introduction we described
the continuing dependency that characterises politics on Cyprus
and we will return to the influences of both state and supra-state
political entities later in our analysis of sustainable tourism
implementation, invoking Lukes’ third dimension of power.

Researchers investigated the asymmetry of power between
residents and tourists (Butler,1980; Shaw&Williams, 2004), power
relations at the local and global level (Bianchi, 2002; Judd &
Simpson, 2003) and power within a public sector policy context
(Elliot, 1983; Hall, 1994, 2000). Overall, two main threads from
literature on power and tourism can be drawn: firstly, social
network analyses investigating power relations (Beritelli & Laesser,

2011; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Scott, Baggio, & Cooper, 2008;
Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007; Wang & Krakover, 2008) and secondly,
research viewing power within a tourism policy domain (Airey &
Chong, 2010; Gunn & Var, 2002; Hall, 2008; Pforr, 2006).
Dowding (1996) suggested that discussion on the use of power can
be narrowed down to two prevailing concepts: ‘power over’ and
‘power to’. In tourism, power of interest groups ‘over’ local and
regional governments (Mowforth & Munt, 1998) and power ‘to’
shape aspects of tourist activities (Coleman & Crang, 2002; Crouch,
2004) has been investigated. Hence, Church & Coles’ (2007) defi-
nition of power as the interplay of individuals, organisations and
agencies influencing or trying to influence the direction of policy
reflects the relations among stakeholders.

The notion of sustainable tourism implies that social groups and
host communities need to participate in decision-making on a
relatively level playing field. Yet, “in tourism planning and policy-
making it is inequality rather than equality that is the order of the
day” (Hall& Jenkins, 2004, p.77). While governments are presumed
to be the most powerful stakeholder, this may not always be the
case. The success of sustainable tourism implementation depends
greatly on the government’s ability to coordinate and balance roles
and interests of stakeholder groups and to protect resources
through appropriate developmental strategies, yet even govern-
ments play many roles: investor, regulator, planner and coordi-
nator, thus opening the possibility of a complex web of over-
lapping interests.

As sustainable tourism policies are often made in non-tourism
governmental departments, the network of actors involved in its
implementation is further expanded. Richter, Butler and Pearce
(1995) argues that the scale, issues and number of participants in
tourism politics has changed, leading to fiercer power struggles.
Tourism is a complex sector by nature, consisting of multiple actors
with diverse interests, thus, policymaking and implementation is
bound to face challenges. Research has shown that within western
democracy power is also exerted on governments by strong in-
dustrial associations, lobbies or private sector elites including
external investors (Bramwell & Meyer, 2007; O’ Brien, 2012).
Several studies have indicated that failed sustainable tourism
implementation derives from the dominance of an economic
imperative directing tourism development (Bianchi, 2004;
Bramwell, 2011; Daphnet, Scott, & Ruhanen, 2012; Hall, 2011;
Logar, 2010; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002; Wesley & Pforr, 2010).
Other inhibiting factors include political misdirection, volatility and
conflict (Church & Coles, 2007; Novelli, Morgan & Nigibira, 2012;
Ruhanen, 2013; Yasarata et al., 2010).

What the existing literature tells us is that the influence of hu-
man relations on political environments, the social context in
which policymaking takes place and institutional arrangements
pertaining to tourism planning are influential in shaping tourism
development. Sharpley and Knight (2009, p.242) argue that “the
nature of state involvement and policies for tourism is dependent
on both the political economic structures and the prevailing po-
litical ideology in the destination state”. Burns (2004) agrees that
ideological beliefs directly shape tourism policies. Although
Mowforth and Munt (2009) argue that mutually beneficial re-
lationships are essential for effective tourism planning, the devel-
opment of tourism becomes largely a political practice, with power
struggles among public and private sector stakeholders as well as
the host community being more evident than ever at the global,
national and sub-national levels.

3.3. Implementing sustainable tourism

According to Dredge and Jenkins (2007) policies denote the
formal positions of governments; hence, planning is related to the

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190182

political background of a destination. To date, a number of scholars
have devoted their attention to the relationship between tourism
and politics (Burns & Novelli, 2007; Church & Coles, 2007; Hall,
1994; Richter, 1989). However, few studies have examined the
political factors surrounding the decision-making processes influ-
encing sustainable tourism implementation. Coles and Church
(2007) agree that the social and political dimension of sustain-
able tourism development has been largely ignored by academic
researchers. Whilst several authors argued that the problem of
sustainable tourism implementation lies in its practical application
(Bianchi, 2004; Daphnet et al., 2012; Dewhurst & Thomas, 2003;
Dodds, 2007; Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002; Logar, 2010), and
stakeholder-related issues have been identified as a barrier (Bell &
Morse, 2004; Dodds, 2007; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Waligo, Clarke,
& Hawkins, 2013; Yasarata et al., 2010), the political dimension
involved in the implementation process of sustainable tourism
remains an under-researched area.

4. Methodology

We now turn our attention to the second aim of this article – to
make explicit amethodology for studying the politics of sustainable
tourism at the destination level that incorporates key concepts
from the extant literature with empirical fieldwork in a novel, data
analysis framework. Out of the literature review, a set of research
questions drove the data collection and analysis employed in this
study. These were:

� Which stakeholders are responsible for policymaking sur-
rounding tourism development?

� Who is involved in sustainable tourism implementation?
� What type of conflicts exists between stakeholders with regards
to decisions pertaining to sustainable tourism development?

� How are these manifested in the implementation phase?

While the literature has opened up important areas of inquiry
for our study, it was less helpful in methodological terms. In order
to capture the complexity of the politics of tourism on the island of

Fig. 1. Data collection and analysis framework.
Source: Authors.

Cyprus and to analyse the current status of sustainable tourism
implementation, it was necessary to design a research methodol-
ogy, incorporating a framework to guide data collection and anal-
ysis (see Fig. 1).

This framework has been designed based on the review of the
literature. The review of the literature revealed that investigating
different country context requires an evaluation of the different
stages of sustainable tourism development and implementation.
One, however, needs to consider the roles and interests of different
stakeholders in the sustainable development and implementation
process. This is particularly important as power allocation and
exertion of power by different stakeholder groups influences the
creation of sustainable policies, development of projects as well as
the politics of decision making and implementation among the
stakeholder groups. In addition, in understanding tourism politics,
it is important to consider the political ideology of the country
context where politicians could possess different attitudes and
mindsets towards sustainable tourism development and imple-
mentation; context is embedded within different socio-cultural
political norms and ideological influences.

4.1. Data collection

The aim of the study was to gain in-depth understanding on the
factors influencing sustainable tourism implementation in relation
to politics, thus a qualitative research strategy was adopted. Spe-
cifically, exploratory semi-structured interviews were undertaken
with key stakeholders identified by the researchers as being
directly and indirectly related to the tourism sectors of both
southern and northern Cyprus. Purposive sampling from the
stakeholder communities was used, as it is particularly useful in
evaluation and policy research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Purpo-
sive sampling enables researchers to use their judgement to select
people that will best enable them to answer their research ques-
tions and to meet their objectives (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007).
Data collection was conducted in two phases. A preliminary phase
of interviews with stakeholders in southern Cyprus took place from
March 2012 to March 2013. Follow-up interviews were conducted

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190 183

in May 2013 including respondents from both southern and
northern Cyprus in order to allow comparisons. Overall, 35 in-
terviews were undertaken with stakeholders from different groups
including government officers (11), regional tourism board officers
(6), private investors (4), non-profit organisations (3), associations
(5) and academics (6).

The respondents were carefully selected to reflect different
sectors of the industry and allow for enriched views. The interviews
lasted around 45min andwere recordedwith the permission of the
interviewees. Questions were framed according to the objectives of
the research and included questions related to sustainable tourism
development, approaches to implementation and inhibiting
factors.

4.2. Data analysis

Frame analysis was used to analyse data whereby emerging
topics were grouped into interrelated themes, following a coding
scheme. As Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested the transcripts
and notes from the interviews were read several times in order to
identify key themes. Subsequently, blocks of verbatim text were
copied, re-organised and cross-referenced to allow the identifica-
tion of thematic categories. Overall, findings were categorised into
the following themes: a) stage of sustainable tourism development
and implementation; b) stakeholders, roles and interests; c) power
allocations and its influences; and d) political ideology. Sub-
categories also emerged which allowed for greater consistency in
structure and elaboration on key issues which encourage evidence-
based understanding (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011).

5. Findings

We discuss the findings of the study in two sections. In the first
section, we describe the roles and responsibilities of influential
stakeholders in sustainable tourism implementation. In the second
section, we provide a narrative account of the outcomes of the
cross-referencing process displayed in Fig. 1. In particular, an
explanation of specific examples of sustainable tourism imple-
mentation is provided by considering the influence of multiple
actors, their powers and underlying ideology. During the discussion
we exemplify the faces of power drawing upon respondent
quotations.

5.1. Stakeholder identification

In order to understand the nature of decision-making in Cyprus,
stakeholders were grouped according to their organisational posi-
tion (i.e. public sector/private sector) and compared by type of in-
dustry and between the two sectors to allow for a more holistic
approach.

The public sector has been regarded as the driving force of
tourism in both southern and northern Cyprus. In the southern
part, themain governmental institution responsible for the tourism
sector’s development is theMinistry of Energy, Industry, Commerce
and Tourism. The responsibilities of the Ministry include the
enactment of laws, regulations and policies, the coordination of all
governmental departments engaged in tourism development, the
approval of tourism plans and the allocation of budgets. The Cyprus
Tourism Organisation (CTO), a quasi-governmental organisation
supervised by the Ministry, is the primary department solely
engaged with tourism. Although in its mission statement the CTO’s
tasks include tourism planning, product development, marketing
and licensing of accommodation, respondents from both the public
and private sectors agreed that the organisation has no power in
decision-making or policymaking. As one officer from the CTO put

it, “we are only able to influence the development of sustainable
tourism indirectly” in a process of suggesting ideas, policies and
regulations to the Ministry despite the organisation’s explicit remit
to be responsible for sustainable tourism implementation.

Despite the predominant role of the public sector, tourism in
southern Cyprus is highly dependent on private investment. Pos-
sessing significant financial and land resources, the private sector is
regarded as a catalyst for the growth of the industry. Fieldwork
evidence identified the accumulative power of industry associa-
tions, primarily hoteliers and tourism entrepreneurs, which are
frequently consulted in terms of tourism planning. The powerful
position of the associations was particularly evident following the
recent financial crisis, when the government consultedmembers of
the private sector regarding the future of tourism. As a manager of
an association stated “we are the active driver for the formulation of
comprehensive tourism policies”. Inevitably, we conclude that the
private sector in southern Cyprus is a main influencer on tourism
development and a key actor in the second face of power, deter-
mining what are legitimate values in tourism development and, as
we shall show, using non-decision making to shape power
relations.

In northern Cyprus the governmental institution responsible for
tourism is the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture,
responsible for tourism planning andmarketing. An environmental
department within the Ministry is also responsible for the main-
tenance of environmental protection laws and regulations. Re-
spondents from northern Cyprus stated that the ministry is
dependent on the Turkish government for sizable investments and/
or key decisions regarding tourism development. Consequently, as
in southern Cyprus, external political stakeholders are powerful
influencers of decisions taken on infrastructural projects and
tourism investments. The private sector is divided in two stake-
holder groupse the Turkish investors of casinos and holiday resorts
attracted to northern Cyprus by the tax reductions and unrestricted
construction and licensing procedures and the Turkish Cypriot
tourism businessmen, who have formed respective associations.

Whilst the private sector in both southern and northern Cyprus
remains an important influence on tourism policy, the government
has the final say in decision-making. Hence, the development of a
harmonious relationship between the sectors and the alignment of
interests is posited as essential for tourism progress. In southern
Cyprus, six regional tourism boards based on a public-private
partnership structure were established in 2009 to improve
decision-making and distribute tourism benefits to local commu-
nities. Other stakeholders playing an integral part in tourism
development, particularly sustainable tourism, include non-profit
organisations such as the Cyprus Sustainable Tourism Initiative
(CSTI) in southern Cyprus and the Green Peace Movement in
northern Cyprus, which aim to raise awareness on environmental
protection and sustainable tourism. However, these organisations
remain powerless in terms of decision-making, although the CSTI’s
influence on tourism development has been increasing following
Cyprus’ accession in the EU. Lastly, the civic societies of Cyprus are
identified as a stakeholder. With community involvement being a
prerequisite for sustainable tourism, the lack of awareness in
relation to sustainability and environmental consciousness found
in conversations with respondents from both northern and
southern civic society groups signposted the weak position of the
sustainable tourism policy option.

5.2. The politics of sustainable tourism implementation

In order to uncover the factors restricting implementation, the
political environment in which tourism development occurs was
examined by focusing on power relations among stakeholders,

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190184

political ideology and socio-cultural stance towards sustainability
(see Fig. 1). Findings are presented separately for southern and
northern Cyprus to allow for comparison and contrast between two
different political contexts.

5.2.1. The case of southern Cyprus

5.2.1.1. Political ideology. The role of tourism was highlighted
following the financial crisis in March 2013. With a change in
government towards amore neo-liberal political leadership early in
that year, priority was given to recovering from the financial crisis
through a pro-economic growth approach in tourism development.
As a private sector interviewee stated:

“… the previous government was following a more conservative
direction … the government which is now in power is pro-
development … in all our meetings with the president and the
ministers they showed strong support in helping the industry
perform its role as a catalyst for the economic recovery of the island”

Interviewees agreed that the consequences of the financial crisis
and the restrictions imposed by the EU and Russia do not allow any
criticism of government practices, a typical comment being:

“The relative large weight given, particularly in the last ten years, to
safeguard short-term economic interest unfortunately is expected
to increase further in the following years due to the grave economic
hardships imposed recently on the Cyprus economy by the Euro-
group and Troika” (Private sector respondent)

Respondents from the educational sector warned against such
developmental approaches, highlighting the challenge present for
sustainable tourism implementation under the prevailing circum-
stances. As a respondent stated “the Cyprus tourism industry seeks
massive growth…which is not in the spirit of sustainability”. The lack
of awareness on the part of policymakers of the importance and the
benefits of sustainability was identified as a cause of the failure to
implement sustainable tourism.

“Ideologies, from the previous and current government, support
tourism development. Nevertheless, they have different approaches
towards development and sustainability. The main aspect is that all
political forces in Cyprus, except the Green party, support large-
scale tourism developments such as casinos, marinas and golf
without supporting a programme that would sustain these de-
velopments” (Academic respondent)

5.2.1.2. Power relations. Respondents fromNGOs lamented the lack
of governmental support for sustainable tourism initiatives and
argued that attracting the public sector’s attention is a challenging
process. The lack of governmental support was further highlighted
by private sector interviewees who claimed that “the absence of
appropriate infrastructure and incentives for the development and
utilisation of sustainable energy” is evident. As a private sector
respondent stated:

“Cyprus is a small island suffering tremendously by the lack of
natural resources, urbanism, and lack of environmental culture,
knowledge and education regarding responsible practices”

Whilst southern Cyprus is obliged to follow EU sustainability
regulations, compliance is problematic. A persistent water shortage
problem remains unsolved as politicians do not realise the gravity
of the situation and possible consequences. “A lack of coordination
and planning at various levels of and between the competent

governmental departments, semi-governmental and the local au-
thorities” further aggravates the situation as each institution follows
its own interests, leading to ineffective, inconsistent communica-
tion between the parties involved. Consequently, the enforcement
of plans and policies is inhibited with certain stakeholders such as
local authorities having no tourism orientation.

Therefore, NGOs are following a bottom-up approach whereby
they are attempting to introduceminimum sustainability standards
in hotels rather than target public sector members. Yet, the ne-
cessity of a regulation to encourage the adoption of sustainable
tourism practices has been emphasised:

“The problem with the CTO is that they are not a policy-maker. We
need to go to the ministry and governmental level to create policies
… in order to do so we start presenting the idea to hotelier asso-
ciations because they have the financial means. So we need to
convince them. We make sure that they understand sustainable
tourism and then we try to approach the parliament. The hoteliers,
the tourism organisations are the most powerful lobbies” (NGO
respondent)

Interestingly, whilst the responsible Ministry appears to be the
legal authority of the tourism sector, an NGO respondent asserted
that the true driving force lies elsewhere. As an academic respon-
dent stated:

“An important stakeholder in the whole sector is the private sector
because the hotel and tourism industry is private sector and all the
projects are based on private-public partnerships…Howmany golf
courses we have right now? I think around 14 and they wish to
issue another 10 licenses. For sustainable tourism it does not make
sense but it means that they (private sector) are very powerful as
they have money and want to invest”

It was reported that to accommodate private sector interests it
was not unusual for projects such as the Limassol Marina to be
cancelled and then re-announced in an altered form. Similarly, the
development of the large-scale luxury Limnis project began in an
environmentally protected area, despite its recognition by the EU as
a protected Natural 2000 area. Consequently, inequality in power
relations between stakeholders is clearly evident. It has not been
unusual in the past for private sector actors to sponsor the election
campaigns of politicians, raising questions over their probity. The
close cooperation between the government and the private sector,
particularly hoteliers, was further confirmed by a member of the
hoteliers association:

“Of course whenever a new government is elected we undertake a
series of meetings … with the president of the Republic and the
various ministers who have direct or indirect influence in the in-
dustry … we propose various ideas and suggestions which need to
be taken in order to improve the situation in the tourism industry.
The role and the importance of the tourism sector has been elevated
again, following the crisis, as a top priority for the government”

Through this commentary, examples of Lukes’ second face of
power are exposed. The recent electoral support for a government
in the south extolling neo-liberal values closes down debate on
policy direction to non-controversial values along the lines of, ‘the
economy is in trouble … further development is needed … an un-
fettered private sector will provide the drivers for recovery’. Non-
action, in the form of the cancellation of major projects, further
demonstrates how hard won concessions to sustainability princi-
ples are cast aside to be replaced by profit-maximising develop-
ment plans. Furthermore, the stranglehold on power exercised by

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190 185

the private sector is evidenced by the desperate actions of civic
societies. Under pluralisticmodels of power relations, civic interests
are encouraged to lobby decision-making bodies, normally, an arm
of the state. The lobbying strategy of NGOs in our study, who choose
to target the private sector as a route to indirectly influencing the
state, confirms the unequal power relations that distort decision
making processes. Thus the direct route to influencing government
policy is successfully cut-off and the legitimacy of any alternative
values in development are suppressed by a self-interested private
sector in collaboration with a weakened state.

5.2.1.3. Socio-cultural environment. Hence, it appears that in
southern Cyprus sustainable tourism implementation is inhibited
by “dominance in decision-making of short-term economic interests of
the private sector and the lack of awareness on sustainability on behalf
of the public sector”. This is coupled with the short-term oriented
personal relationships and favouritism dominating the society’s
culture:

“Greek Cypriots are very short-term orientated, which has its causes
in the turbulent history. Projects are orientated towards short-term
economic results and there is no targeted strategic acting or
decision-making. Decisions are made by considering personal
benefits and relations often influence decision-making. People
know each other … Cyprus is a tiny place. There are also issues in
terms of taking responsibility… and there is no true environmental
culture and effective waste management in place. All these aspects
and values of the society simply collide with the principals of sus-
tainable development” explained an academic respondent.

A private sector respondent agreed with the short-term orien-
tation but offered the education of different values as a solution
stating that:

“People worry too much about today and neglect to pay attention
to what our children will inherit. The greater picture of the con-
sequences of today’s actions becomes less important. It will take
time and education for everyone to understand”

These may be genuine sentiments but what they shield, are any
explicit recognition of theworkings of the second face of power.We
concur with the view that the small size Cyprus implies that people
within political and economic elites are inevitably interlinked. Our
data shows that public and private interaction is shaped by a highly
developed system of mutual favours, inwhich the possession of the
right financial background and good interpersonal relations are
crucial to success. Personal interests often take a priority over so-
cietal welfare, as the executive power of politicians is frequently
used to favour their private financial supporters. Societal belief
rests on the assumption that politicians abuse their positions to
enrich themselves. Thus, it is not surprising that large-scale pro-
jects are being approved by channelling state-funded projects into
the hands of businesses owned by relatives or friends of politicians.
Such culture fosters a system where people with inadequate
qualifications are often elected to important public-sector positions
and there is a tacit acceptance of established unequal distributions
of power.We do not dispute the importance of a sustainable values-
based education, but there was no evidence to support any opti-
mism in this respect.

5.2.2. The case of northern Cyprus

5.2.2.1. Political ideology. To speak of tourism development in
northern Cyprus is anachronistic. The primary reason for what
might be better termed as underdevelopment is the current polit-
ical situation. It is best characterised in our analysis as a

development vacuum created by both the isolation of northern
Cyprus and the absence of any ideological influence, combined
with a rapid turnover in political leadership. The political status of
northern Cyprus presents an exceptional case in relation to sus-
tainable tourism. As one public sector respondent commented:

“North Cyprus is a community where there is a lot of political
uncertainty … without being part of the global society or under
international law … nobody is bringing any courage, any access to
global sources of money. Enforcing rules and policies which have
been developed in stable countries is difficult to apply here. All the
things we have learned in university, which are written in theo-
retical books are not applicable here under these circumstances.
Therefore, you need to develop your own model”

Respondents agreed that the lack of law enforcement in such an
unstable environment hinders sustainable tourism implementa-
tion. Furthermore, respondents argued that the lack of political
vision and leadership, the influence of mainland Turkey and the
lack of cultural identity create an environment where sustainability
is difficult to flourish. The absence of political stability and security
inhibit any form of planned development and as an academic
respondent observed:

“the lack of recognition by the international community and being
preoccupied with the Cyprus conflict played a role in putting the
development of tourism more or less in the back rather than
making it the priority … This probably resulted in a very slow
process in term of market ties, infrastructure, accessibility, plan-
ning and laws and regulations”

5.2.2.2. Power relations. Societal members also showed mistrust of
government intentions and ability to introduce change in the in-
dustry. For instance, whilst the government has issued financial
incentives for agro-tourism development, it did not provide
training or advisory support to businessmen. As a result, several
agro-tourism establishments closed down due to low occupancy
levels. As interviewees stated, sustainable tourism development
requires more than financial support. Yet, as the objectives and
mentality of the government are incompatible with the principles
of sustainability, any future development of sustainable tourism in
northern Cyprus appears unlikely.

Moreover, the lack of coordination and cooperation among
public sector stakeholders further worsens the situation. With
different ministries following their own interests rather than
aiming at societal welfare, a form of rivalry among them is evident.
The lack of consideration for societal well-being is also inhibited by
the pursuit for personal interests. With personal agendas domi-
nating much political decision-making, it is evident that political
accountability is absent.

“’It is a small place [… ] everybody knows each other, they can
easily bypass laws and regulations and build in locations where they
shouldn’t” explained one academic respondent.

Interpersonal connections give rise to personal-based politics
which in turn lead to constant changes to political mandates. With
several public sector employees being appointed according to
personal favours rather than academic qualifications, lack of edu-
cation about tourism is also a key obstacle to sustainable tourism
development. As an academic respondent put it:

“The people in these institutions are sometimes not even qualified
for this job. They are somebody’s relative or they knew each other
or they are party affiliates… every time political changes occur the
previous policy and decisions are forgotten. So there is no
continuity”.

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190186

Consequently, any long-term political vision is absent. The
success of sustainable tourism implementation is largely based on
the enactment of laws, which according to respondents are
currently stalled. As one public sector respondent reported:

“They have passed a law from the parliament [… ] a legal frame-
work for stakeholders to be involved in the preparation and
implementation of tourism development [… ] Who are in the law?
The Undersecretary, the Head of Tourism Planning, the Marketing
Director, the Head of City Planning and the Environmental officer
[… ] but they have to prepare a bylaw for the implementation. So,
there is a law but no bylaw for the implementation”

Similarly, another informant agreed that “since we are a devel-
oping country we don’t have proper policies to conserve those
natural areas… and people want to gain money. They suffered a lot,
they don’t want to wait” emphasising the lack of legislation or
inability of implementing regulations. For example, on the Golden
Beach in the Karpaz Peninsula, a Natural 2000 area, building per-
missions have not been issued, but in 2012 wooden lodging facilities
were constructed supposedly for a concert. Despite the protests of
citizens and the pressure exercised by NGOs the lodging facilities
have not been removed yet, although the event itself was cancelled.

The inability to enforce laws, respondents said, is strengthened
by the absence of appropriate planning tools, financial resources
and power struggles among stakeholders. As one informant from
the education sector explained:

“They are into tourism, but what type of tourism, what kind of
tourism, what vision, based onwhat plan… tourism is on autopilot.
It is not a lay-down framework based on so-called principals of
sustainability. I don’t see any strategy or long term vision’”

These examples from the north further illustrate the second face
of power on the island. The “mobilisation of bias” (Schattschneider,
as cited in Hall, 2010:204) speaks to the intense ministerial rivalries
observed by our respondents that contest to ‘organise out’ broader
social interest. Circulatory and rapid re-shuffles of political lead-
ership ensure the favouring of one faction of interests over another
for short periods with debilitating and de-stabilising regularity.
Consequently, non-implementation of approved policy results in
the failure to create bye laws to back up primary legislation and
change actual development practices.

5.2.2.3. Socio-cultural environment. Although sustainable devel-
opment is a desired path for some stakeholders, the reality in
northern Cyprus indicates that a different route is followed. Central
to the discussion on development is the case of casinos, with the
public in northern Cyprus frequently accusing the government of
turning the island into a ‘gambling hall’. Civic groups in north
Cyprus have been opposing further expansion of the casino sector;
yet, interviewees acknowledged that casinos are an important in-
come source. Consequently, reliance on gambling tourism remains
persistent as the government is forced to choose the developmental
approach yielding highest profitability over the sustainable option.

Unsurprisingly, respondents claimed that politicians are unaware
of the possibilities of sustainable tourism. An absence of environ-
mental culture among society members further impedes the
implementation of sustainable tourism, withmany stakeholders and
society members taking natural resources for granted. This was
captured in the following comment by an academic respondent:

“’They are not terribly active in terms of keeping the places clean,
environmental issues are still a problem. I think they don’t really

have a good waste management. It is more or less a throw-away-
culture. I also haven’t seen a lot of measures in relation to envi-
ronmental quality”

Although NGOs such as the Cyprus Green Movement are trying
to educate the society about environmental protection, economic
needs prevail. As one private sector respondent remarked “people
did suffer from the situation in North Cyprus. Now they want to earn
money, see some changes and don’t care about the environment”.
Interviewees from the private, public and NGO sectors agreed that
the short-term orientation and search for profitability, with little
consideration of the future, is a cultural tendency that has been
shaped over the years due to the belief that locals have no influence
over their own destiny. This cultural mentality is also evident
among politicians and as one NGO respondent warned:

“There should be a cultural and attitude revision among policy-
makers and people in relation to tourism development, environ-
ment and planning [… ] being dependent on Turkey for major
policies and strategies [… ] and probably also the mentality of
policy-makers has remained not terribly dynamic”

Indeed, respondents from the NGO and academic sectors were
generally critical of the lack of government initiative in sustainable
tourism arguing that “the government and ministry play a role on the
theatre stage and nothing else. They don’t take any initiative to change
something”.

6. Discussion

6.1. A theoretical frame for further studies of sustainable tourism in
complex political contexts

In opening this discussion of our findings we first identify a
theoretical frame for further studies of sustainable tourism in
complex political contexts. Three mechanisms are identified that
shape the politics of sustainable tourism development and both
enable and constrain sustainable tourism implementation in
Cyprus; namely political structure, socio-cultural environment and
external forces. First, sustainable tourism implementation is
significantly influenced by the existing political system and pre-
vailing political ideology. Our findings reveal that the failure to
implement sustainable tourism is largely the result of incompetent
administrations. Second, there is a strong interface between the
political system and the socio-cultural environment as they
combine to strongly influence sustainable tourism development
and implementation. The evidence from the field suggested that
the interaction between these two mechanisms is central to a
pessimistic prognosis for sustainable tourism. Third, external forces
preoccupied by regional security, ideological conflict struggle, ter-
ritorial disputes and the protection of economic interests, and thus
not directly concerned with tourism development, continue to
overshadow local tourism policymaking. Thus, the evidence from
the study confirms that tourism policymaking is strongly
embedded in the inherent political system and extant power
structure of the societies in Cyprus and inextricably related to
external forces.

In our view, we have found the multi-layered dimensions of
power to be insightful conceptual frames for understanding the
politics of sustainable tourism. The examples we present from both
the north and south of the island of; agendamanipulation, the non-
implementation of policy, and the mobilisation of bias, exemplify,
for us, Lukes’ second face of power. Our attempts to rise to the
challenge of studying political inactivity – the third face of power –

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190 187

demand a more nuanced and tentative analysis. Our thinking on
this has invoked the retroductive move to imagine what sits
beneath the observable events captured in interviews with re-
spondents as our route to studying political inactivity. At this point
we would make the provisional claim that the third face of power
sits within the patterns of historical international relations and the
contemporary economic influences of external supra-states that
shape Cypriot identity. The dependency on Turkish investors in the
north, and EU and Russian finance in the south, perpetuate a deeply
engrained political consciousness defined by dependence that
suppresses any possibility of political self-determination. We sug-
gest that the full power of these interests is not consciously un-
derstood across the electorate. Political elites may privately worry
about external influences on the island’s political future but for the
most part subjugate public debate in favour of protecting their own,
and by extension of their position, the peoples’ economic interests.
Thus, our provisional analysis is that the “real interests” of Cypriots
– for example to create a peaceful and politically stable unified is-
land inwhich the values of sustainable tourismmay find expression
– are hopelessly lost to, “power’s third dimension when it works
against people’s interests by misleading them, thereby distorting
their judgement … such power involves the concealment of peo-
ple’s ‘real interests’ (Lukes, 2005:13).

6.2. The particular case of the implementation of sustainable
tourism on Cyprus

The findings of this study revealed that governments in Cyprus
are following a short-term, pro-growth approach to development
rather than a sustainability agenda. The causes of this short-term
orientation vary markedly between the two sides. Whilst in
southern Cyprus the financial crisis and a change in government
reinforced the continuation of a pro-growth approach in develop-
ment, in the northern part lack of political recognition and eco-
nomic and political dependence on Turkey create a complex
political environment inwhich sustainable tourism is not a priority.
Rather, the dire economic situation highlights the need for eco-
nomic growth through large-scale tourism development. This
confirms previous research findings, arguing that the necessity for
economic sustainability favours a pro-growth developmental
approach (Bianchi, 2004; Bramwell, 2011; Daphnet et al., 2012;
Logar, 2010; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002; Wesley & Pforr, 2010).
The findings of this study also confirm Burns’ (2004) assertion that
political ideology impacts the pace and type of tourism develop-
ment. For instance, the change to a more pro-entrepreneurship
government in southern Cyprus entails the creation of a frame-
work in which development through growth is favoured. Similarly,
the constant mandate changes in northern Cyprus elicit instability
in the political system leading to weak political leadership.

Lack of efficient planning, coordination and knowledge within
the political system act as barriers to sustainable tourism imple-
mentation. Respondents in the study have consistently raised the
issue of non-qualified government officials acquiring powerful po-
sitions through personal association. Consequently, despite the ex-
istence of EU funding opportunities for the adoption of sustainable
tourism practices, with their carefully cast rules of procurement, this
study identified the presence of a deep mistrust from civic society
respondents towards government officials and politicians.

The development of a legal framework penalising unsustainable
tourism practices could provide the driving force for encouraging
sustainability. Yet, the prominence given in our findings to the in-
fluence of the socio-cultural environment in shaping tourism
planning suggests that those scholars who advocate a government-
led approach to the implementation of sustainable tourism should
re-evaluate their position (Bianchi, 2004; Mowforth &Munt, 2009;

Scheyvens, 2011). In the case of Cyprus, socio-cultural values distort
a Western ideal of representative democracy, challenging the
argument that the state should direct policy because a range of
stakeholders are sceptical of the independence of politicians’ ex-
ecutive power. In northern Cyprus, for instance, there seems to be a
strong influence of Turkish investors on tourism policy. Similarly,
our study found that tourism development in southern Cyprus is
driven by influential businessmen, who represent an informal
element of power and aim at satisfying their personal interests over
societal welfare despite the pressure from the EU for transparency
in decision-making.

The interaction between the political system and socio-cultural
environment is evidenced in the study by a lack of awareness of the
potential of sustainable tourism that, in turn, is shaped by an
absence of environmental consciousness. Indeed, Cypriots appear
to be short-term oriented due, in part, to its turbulent history, and
consequently, the development of a long-term vision based on
sustainability principles is not actively addressed. Diverse interests,
due to the multiple stakeholders involved in tourism, create a
complicated setting where power struggles over authority,
resource utilisation and decision-making dominate. Governments
represent the formal power, yet cases where power was exerted on
governments by powerful industrial associations and private sector
elites have been noted in this study and elsewhere (Bramwell &
Meyer, 2007; Dodds & Butler, 2010; O’Brien, 2012). Yasarata et al.
(2010) discuss the ‘politicisation of the public sector’, where poli-
ticians use their authority to distribute resources to interested
parties as a means of remaining in office, and Novelli, Morgan, and
Nibigira (2012) identify the corporate nature of politics, high-
lighting the dominance of business elites in decision-making. Our
data from Cyprus supports these authors’ claims.

7. Conclusions

The political dimension of sustainable tourism has been largely
overlooked. In this article we have made two distinct contributions
to the understanding of the politics of tourism. First, in the complex
political context of Cyprus we have shown how sustainable tourism
implementation continues to be problematic. From our study, we
propose a general set of mechanisms that act to enable and
constrain the implementation of sustainable tourism. Our analysis
has sought to exemplify Lukes’ second and third faces of power. We
are the first to admit that our attempts go only a small way towards
the challenge of studying political non-action. However, these
contributions are offered as a possible theoretical frame for further
studies of sustainable tourism in complex political contexts. Sec-
ond, we have made explicit a methodology for studying the politics
of sustainable tourism that incorporates key concepts from the
extant literature with empirical fieldwork in a novel data analysis
framework. Our findings confirm that there is a strong influence of
politics on sustainable tourism, to the extent that it cannot be
thought of, and debated, without considering the political milieu. In
our view, sustainable tourism becomes a melting pot of political
argument that is facilitated and constrained by external forces, the
political system and the socio-cultural environment.

This study has offered insights into the strong influence of each
mechanism on sustainable tourism. External axes of power shape
the politics of tourism on the island, thus sustainable tourism
cannot escape the wider political agendas shaping the future of the
island. The influence of external factors becomes more apparent
where local political systems are dominated by fluid ideological
struggle, which overlays the power struggles among key tourism
stakeholders. In particular, the lack of a well-established political
system and the continuous change of governments triggers insta-
bility and affect sustainable tourism negatively.

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190188

In addition, this study has shown how the interactions between
the political system and socio-cultural environment have a strong
influence over the politics of sustainable tourism. In particular, the
short-term mentalities of the Cypriot societies on the island
contradict with the ‘sustainability principles’ that requires long-
term planning. Added to this, are the dominant personal interests
and connections that act as the pillars onwhich the political system
of the island is based and consequently negatively influence the
prospects of sustainable tourism’s emphasis on inclusive gover-
nance. An impenetrable jungle of interpersonal relationships be-
tween politicians and powerful business elites, who govern the
tourism industry, is presently creating undemocratic networks that
raise questions over tourism governance structures, destinations
management and social learning.

Moreover, we conclude that as power struggles become more
intense between global, national and local tourism stakeholders,
sustainability discourse requires a more sophisticated consider-
ation of the element of power. Thus, the findings of this study also
have implications for a possible further political change – a unified
Cyprus. As it stands, with the current institutional and govern-
mental structures as well as external drivers, the complexity
of political environment integrated within the socio-cultural
environment collude to render sustainable tourism almost impos-
sible. The unification of the island, should it come to pass, will
therefore be an important opportunity to influence the society
towards the achievement of common, ‘politically-free’ tourism
goals. This will require sociological interventions as well as re-
structuring of public and private sector institutions with long-
term visions and ‘objective’ performance driven management
approach to tourism development in general and sustainable
tourism in particular.

Finally, it is worth noting that the focus of this article has been
on the practices of Sustainable tourism development in Cyprus
although it is axiomatic that the study offers general lessons on
sustainable tourism development to other small islands whose
economies and the tourism industries in particular are dependent
upon on bigger countries. The study also offers general lessons to
destinations where policy makers, local communities and private
sector representatives strive to achieve sustainable tourism but yet
face political and socio-economic challenges. However, the study is
exceptional as the specific focus of the paper is the relationship
between concepts of sustainable tourism development and the
ways in which these are implemented in Cyprus involving power
dimensions unique to this destination.

References

Airey, D., & Chong, K. (2010). National policy-makers for tourism in China. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(2), 295e314.

Alipour, H., & Kilic, H. (2005). An institutional appraisal of tourism development
and planning: the case of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). Tourism
Management, 26(1), 79e94.

Altinay, L., & Bowen, D. (2006). Politics and tourism interfaces e case of Cyprus.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 939e956.

Altinay, M., & Hussain, M. (2005). Sustainable tourism development the case of
North Cyprus’. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
17(3), 272e280.

Altinay, L., Altinay, M., & Bicak, H. A. (2002). Political scenarios: the future of the
North Cyprus tourism industry’. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management, 14(4), 176e182.

Arendt, H. (1970). On Violence. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Ayres, R. (2000). Tourism as a passport to development in small states: reflections

on Cyprus. International Journal of Social Economics, 27(2), 114e133.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. Oxford

University Press.
Backstrand, K., Khan, J., Kronsell, A., & Lovbrand, E. (2010). Environmental Politics

and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance.
UK: Edward Elgar.

BBC. (2013). Cyprus bank crisis e The legacy. Retrieved May 2, 2013 from http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-219370777.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2004). Experiences with sustainability indicators and stake-
holder participation: a case study relating to a ‘Blue Plan’ project in Malta
Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 12(1), 1e14.

Beritelli, P., & Laesser, C. (2011). Power dimensions and influence reputation in
tourist destinations: empirical evidence from a network of actors and stake-
holders. Tourism Management, 32, 1299e1309.

Bianchi, R. V. (2003). Place and power in tourism development: tracing the complex
articulations of community and locality. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural, 1(1), 13e32.

Bianchi, R. V. (2004). Tourism restructuring and the politics of sustainability: a
critical view from the European periphery (The Canary Islands). Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 12(6), 495e529.

Bianchi, R. V. (2002). Towards a new political economy of global tourism. In
R. Sharpley, & D. Telfer (Eds.), Tourism and Development: Concepts and issues (pp.
265e299). Clevendon: Channel View.

Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: a political
economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4e5), 459e477.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and
sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4e5), 411e421.

Bramwell, B., & Meyer, D. (2007). Power and tourism policy relations in Transition.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 766e788.

Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel gover-
nance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 4(1),
42e63.

Burns, P. M., & Novelli, M. (2006). Tourism and social identities: Introduction. In
P. M. Burns, & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism and social Identities: Global frameworks
and local Realities (pp. 1e11). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Burns, P., & Novelli, M. (2007). Tourism and Politics: Global frameworks and local
realities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Burns, P. (2004). Tourism planning: a third way. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1),
24e43.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution. Canadian
Geographer, 24(1), 5e12.

Causevic, S., & Lynch, P. (2013). Political (in)stability and its influence on tourism
development. Tourism Management, 34, 145e157.

Chang, S. L., & Huang, S. L. (2004). Systems approach for the development of a
sustainable communitydthe application of the sensitivity model (SM). Journal
of Environmental Management, 72, 133e147.

Chheang, V. (2008). The political economy of tourism in Cambodia. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 13(3), 281e297.

Church, A., & Coles, T. (2007). Tourism, power and space. London: Routledge.
Cheong, S., & Miller, M. (2000). Power and tourism: a Foucauldian observation.

Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 371e390.
Clerides, S., & Pashourtidou, N. (2007). Tourism in Cyprus: recent trends and

lessons from the tourist satisfaction survey. Cyprus Economic Policy Review,
1(2), 51e72.

Coles, T., & Church, A. (2007). Tourism and the many faces of power. In A. Church, &
T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, power and space (pp. 269e283). London: Routledge.

Coleman, S., & Crang, M. (2002). Tourism: Between place and performance. Berghahn
Books.

Country Profiler. (2011). Cyprus country report. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from
http://www.countryprofiler.com/CP_Cyprus_Report/index.html.

Crouch, D. (2004). Tourist practices and performances. In A. Lew, C. M. Hall, &
A. M. Williams (Eds.), Companion to tourism (pp. 85e95). Oxford: Blackwell.

CTO. (2010). Tourism master plan 2011 e 2015. Retrieved May 6, 2013 from http://
tinyurl.com/m8tvoy5.

CTO. (2013). Annual Report 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2014 fromwww.visitcyprus.biz.
CYSTAT. (2013). Arrivals of tourist by country of usual residence 1980 e 2012.

Retrieved June 15, 2013 from http://tinyurl.com/btw7z42.
Dahles, H. (2002). The Politics of Tour Guiding: Image management in Indonesia.

Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 783e800.
Daphnet, S., Scott, N., & Ruhanen, L. (2012). Applying diffusion theory to destination

stakeholder understanding of sustainable tourism development: a case from
Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(8), 1107e1124.

Dewhurst, H., & Thomas, R. (2003). Encouraging sustainable business practices in a
non-regulatory environment: a case study of small tourism firms in a UK Na-
tional Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(5), 383e403.

Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: lessons from the
Case of Calvi�a, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296e322.

Dodds, R., & Butler, B. (2010). Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy
in mass tourism destinations. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary
Journal of Tourism, 5(1), 35e53.

Doorne, S. (1998). Power, participation and perception: an insider’s perspective on
the politics of the Wellington Waterfront Redevelopment. Current Issues in
Tourism, 1(2), 129e166.

Dowding, K. (1996). Public choice and local governance. In D. King, & G. Stoker
(Eds.), Rethinking local democracy (pp. 50e66). London: Macmillan.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Historical development. In D. Dredge, & J. Jenkins
(Eds.), Tourism planning and policy (pp. 69e111). Milton, Australia: Wiley.

Dredge, D., & Pforr, C. (2008). Tourism policy networks: implications for governance
and third way politics. In N. Scott, R. Baggio, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Network analysis
and tourism (pp. 58e78). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Duffy, R. (2006). Non-governmental organisations and governance states: the
impact of transnational environmental management networks in Madagascar.
Environmental Politics, 15(5), 731e749.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref1

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref2

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref3

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref4

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref5

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref6

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref7

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref8

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-219370777

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref12

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref14

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref15

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref16

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref17

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref18

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref19

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref20

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref21

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref23

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref24

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref25

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref26

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref27

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref28

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref29

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref30

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref31

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref32

mailto:http://www.countryprofiler.com/CP_Cyprus_Report/index.html

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref34

http://tinyurl.com/m8tvoy5

mailto:www.visitcyprus.biz

http://tinyurl.com/btw7z42

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref38

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref39

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref40

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref41

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref42

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref43

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref44

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref45

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref46

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref47

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190 189

Duffy, R., & Moore, L. (2011). Global regulations and local practices: the politics and
governance of animal welfare in elephant tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19(4e5), 589e604.

Elliot, J. (1983). Politics, power, and tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research,
10, 377e393.

Erkus-Ozturk, H., & Eraydin, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable
tourism development: collaborative networks and organisation building in the
Antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113e124.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject of power. In H. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel
Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 777e795). Brighton:
Harvester Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. Interview by a. Fontana and P. Pasquino. In
C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected interview and other writings
1972e1977 (pp. 109e133). New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume I: An introduction. New York:
Vintage Books.

Gunn, A. C., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning e Basics, concepts, cases. New York
and London: Routledge.

Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics e Policy, power and place. Chichester: Wiley.
Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning policies, processes and relationships. Harlow:

Prentice-Hall.
Hall, C. M. (2007). Tourism Planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow:

Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism Planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow:

Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Hall, C. M. (2010). Power in tourism: tourism in power. In D. V. L. Macleod, &

J. G. Carrier (Eds.), Tourism, power and Culture: Anthropological insights (pp.
199e213). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Hall, M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy
analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4e5), 437e457.

Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (1995). Tourism and public policy. London: Routledge.
Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (2004). Tourism and public policy. In A. Lew, C. M. Hall, &

A. M. Williams (Eds.), Companion to tourism (pp. 525e540). UK: Blackwells.
Hall, C. M., & Rusher, K. (2004). Risky lifestyles? Entrepreneurial characteristics of

the New Zealand bed and breakfast sector. In R. Thomas (Ed.), Small firms in
tourism: International perspectives (pp. 83e98). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Hall, C. M., Timothy, D., & Duval, D. (2004). Security and tourism: towards a new
understanding? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2/3), 1e18.

Hardy, A. L., & Beeton, R. J. S. (2001). Sustainable tourism or maintainable tourism:
managing resources for more than average outcomes. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 9(3), 168e192.

Hardy, A., Beeton, R., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: an overview of the
concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), 475e496.

Harrison, D., & Hitchcock, M. (2005). The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating
tourism and conservation. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Haugaard, M. (2002). Power: A reader, Manchester. Manchester University Press.
Hazbun, W. (2008). Images of openness, spaces of control: the politics of tourism

development in Tunisia. Arab Studies Journal, (Fall 2007/Spring 2008), 10e35.
Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation

and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299e320.
Henderson, J. C. (2002). Tourism and politics on the Korean Peninsula. The Journal of

Tourism Studies, 13(2), 16e27.
Henderson, J. (2003). The politics of tourism in Myanmar. Current Issues in Tourism,

6(2), 97e118.
Henderson, J. C. (2008). The politics of tourism: a perspective from the Maldives,

Tourismos. An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 3(1), 99e115.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011).Qualitative researchmethods. London: Sage.
Ioannides, D. (1992). Tourism development agents: the Cypriot resort cycle. Annals

of Tourism Research, 19(4), 711e731.
Ioannides, D., & Apostolopoulos, Y. (1999). Political instability, war, and tourism in

Cyprus: effects, management, and prospects for recovery. Journal of Travel
Research, 38(1), 51e56.

Issa, I., & Altinay, L. (2006). Impacts of political instability on tourism planning and
development: the case of Lebanon. Tourism Economics, 12(3), 361e381.

Judd, D., & Simpson, D. (2003). Reconstructing the local state. American Behavioral
Scientist, 46(8), 1056e1069.

Kaplan, A. (1964). Power in perspective. Power and Conflict in Organizations. London:
Tavistock.

Key, V. O. (1958). Politics, parties and pressure groups. New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell.
Kim, S. S., Timothy, D. J., & Han, H. C. (2007). Tourism and political ideologies: a case

of tourism in North Korea. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1031e1043.
Krutwaysho, O., & Bramwell, B. (2010). Tourism policy implementation and society.

Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 670e691.
Lasswell, H. (1958). Who gets what, when and how? New York: Meridien Books.
Logar, I. (2010). Sustainable tourism management in Crkvenica, Croatia: an

assessment of policy instruments. Tourism Management, 31, 125e135.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
McLeod, M. T., & Airey, D. (2007). The politics of tourism development: a case of

dual governance in Tobago. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 1(3),
217e231.

Menkhaus, K. (2007). Governance without government in Somalia. International
Security, 31(3), 74e106.

Miles, B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globali-
sation and new tourism in the third world. London: Routledge.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and Sustainability: New tourism in the third
world. London: Routledge.

Nelson, F. (2012). Blessing or curse? the political economy of tourism development
in Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 359e375.

Novelli, M., Morgan, N., & Nibigira, C. (2012). Tourism in a post-conflict state of
fragility. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1446e1469.

Nunkoo, R., & Smith, S. (2013). Political economy of tourism: trust in government
actors, political support, and their determinants. Tourism Management, 36,
120e132.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community
support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997e1023.

Nyaupane, G. P., & Timothy, D. J. (2010). Power, regionalism and tourism policy in
Bhutan. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 969e988.

O’Brien, A. (2012). Wasting a good crisis: developmental failure and Irish tourism
since 2008. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1138e1155.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling
designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281e316.

Paterson, M., Humphreys, D., & Pettiford, L. (2003). Conceptualizing global envi-
ronmental governance: from interstate regimes to counter-hegemonic strug-
gles. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), 1e10.

Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of political power. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 107(3), 232e262.

Pechlaner, H., & Tschurtschenthaler, P. (2003). Tourism policy, tourism organisations
and change management in Alpine regions and destinations: a European
perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 6, 508e539.

Pforr, C. (2006). Tourism policy in the making. An Australian network study. Annals
of Tourism Research, 33, 87e108.

Reinfeld, M. A. (2003). Tourism and the politics of cultural preservation: a case
study of Bhutan. Journal of Public and International Affairs, 14(4), 30e37.

Richter, L. K. (1989). The politics of tourism in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.

Richter, L. K., Butler, R. W., & Pearce, D. (1995). Gender and race: neglected variables
in tourism research. Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes, 71e91.

Rkhter, L. K. (2004). The politics of heritage tourism development, Emerging issues
for the new millennium. Tourism Development, 108.

Ruhanen, L. (2013). Local government: facilitator or inhibitor of sustainable tourism
development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 80e98.

Scheyvens, R. (2011). The challenge of sustainable tourism development in the
Maldives: understanding the social and political dimensions of sustainability.
Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 52(2), 148e164.

Scott, N., Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2008). Network analysis and tourism: From theory
to practice. Clevedon, UK: Channel View.

Sharpley, R., & Knight, M. (2009). Tourism and the State in Cuba: from the Past to
the Future. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3), 241e254.

Sharpley, R. (2003). Tourism, modernisation and development on the Island of
Cyprus: challenges and policy responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
11(2&3), 246e265.

Shaw, S., & Williams, A. (2004). Tourism and tourism spaces. London: Sage.
Sofield, T. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Oxford:

Pergamon.
Stevenson, N., Airey, D., & Miller, G. (2008). Tourism policy making:: the policy-

makers’ perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732e750.
Su, X., & Teo, P. (2009). The politics of heritage tourism in China: A view from Lijiang.

London and New York: Routledge.
Teo, P., & Li, L. H. (2003). Global and local interactions in tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 30(2), 287e306.
TCRN Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Culture. (2012). Statistical yearbook of

Tourism. Retrieved June 21, 2013 from http://tinyurl.com/obwy3oy.
TCRNMinistry of Tourism, Environment and Culture. (2013). ). Statistical yearbook of

Tourism. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from http://tinyurl.com/obwy3oy.
Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing sustainable tourism develop-

ment on a small island: development and the use of sustainable tourism
development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5),
363e387.

Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: a
multi-stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism Management,
36, 342e353.

Wang, Y., & Bramwell, B. (2012). Heritage protection and tourism development
priorities in Hangzhou, China: a political economy and governance perspective.
Tourism Management, 33(4), 988e998.

Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2007). Collaborative destination marketing: a case
study of Elkhart county, Indiana. Tourism Management, 28(3), 863e875.

Wang, Y., & Krakover, S. (2008). Destination marketing: competition, cooperation or
competition? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
20(2), 126e141.

Wesley, A., & Pforr, C. (2010). The governance of coastal tourism: unravelling the
layers of complexity at Smiths Beach, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(6), 773e792.

Williams, A. M. (2004). Toward a political economy of tourism. In A. Lew, C. M. Hall,
& A. M. Williams (Eds.), A Companion to tourism (pp. 61e73). Malden: Blackwell.

Woods, M. (2011). The local politics of the global countryside: boosterism, aspira-
tional ruralism and the contested reconstitution of Queenstown, New Zealand.
Geojournal, 76, 365e381.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref48

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref49

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref50

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref51

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref52

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref53

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref54

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref55

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref56

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref57

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref58

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref59

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref60

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref61

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref62

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref63

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref64

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref65

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref66

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref67

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref68

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref69

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref70

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref71

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref72

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref73

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref74

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref75

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref76

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref77

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref78

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref79

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref81

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref82

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref83

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref84

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref85

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref86

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref87

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref88

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref89

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref90

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref91

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref92

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref93

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref94

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref95

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref96

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref97

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref98

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref99

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref100

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref101

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref102

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref103

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref104

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref105

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref106

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref107

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref108

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref109

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref110

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref111

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref112

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref113

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref114

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref115

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref116

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref117

http://tinyurl.com/obwy3oy

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref120

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref121

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref122

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref123

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref124

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref125

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref126

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref127

A. Farmaki et al. / Tourism Management 47 (2015) 178e190190

Yasarata, M., Altinay, L., Burns, P., & Okumus, F. (2010). Politics and sustainable
tourism development e can they co-exist? Voices from Cyprus’. Tourism Man-
agement, 31, 345e356.

Zhang, Q. H., Chong, K., & Jenkins, C. L. (2002). Tourism policy implementation in
mainland China: an enterprise perspective. International Journal of Contempo-
rary Hospitality Management, 14(1), 38e42.

Zhu, Y. (2012). When the global meets the local in tourism-Cultural performances in
Lijiang as case studies. Journal of China Tourism Research, 8, 302e319.

Anna Farmaki is a Lecturer in the School of Business and
Management at the University of Central Lancashire
Cyprus. Her research interests lie in the areas of tourism
planning and development and tourist behaviour.

Levent Altinay is a Professor of Strategy and Entrepre-
neurship at Oxford School of Hospitality Management. His
research interests are in the areas of tourism planning and
entrepreneurship. Using primarily qualitative methods as
well as mixed methods, he is particularly interested in
how tourism entrepreneurs start up and develop their
businesses and how firms establish partnerships
internationally.

David Botterill is a Senior Research Fellow in the same
department. His research interests are tourism and crime
and medial tourism.

Sarina Hilke is a research assistant in the same depart-
ment and her research interests are in the areas of sus-
tainable tourism development and politics of tourism.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref128

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref129

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00189-7/sref130

1. Introduction

2. Tourism development in Cyprus

2.1. Southern Cyprus

2.2. Northern Cyprus

3. Literature review

3.1. The role of politics in tourism policy making

3.2. Power and stakeholder relations

3.3. Implementing sustainable tourism

4. Methodology

4.1. Data collection

4.2. Data analysis

5. Findings

5.1. Stakeholder identification

5.2. The politics of sustainable tourism implementation

5.2.1. The case of southern Cyprus

5.2.1.1. Political ideology

5.2.1.2. Power relations

5.2.1.3. Socio-cultural environment

5.2.2. The case of northern Cyprus

5.2.2.1. Political ideology

5.2.2.2. Power relations

5.2.2.3. Socio-cultural environment

6. Discussion

6.1. A theoretical frame for further studies of sustainable tourism in complex political contexts

6.2. The particular case of the implementation of sustainable tourism on Cyprus

7. Conclusions

References

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Politics and sustainable tourism development – Can they co-exist?
Voices from North Cyprus

Muhammet Yasarata a, Levent Altinay b,*, Peter Burns c, Fevzi Okumus d

a Cyprus Premier Holidays Ltd, UK
b Department of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism Management, The Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK
c Centre for Tourism Policy Studies, University of Brighton, UK
d Rosen College of Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Universal Blvd Orlando, Florida 32819, US

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 October 2008
Accepted 27 March 2009

Keywords:
Small island
Sustainable tourism development
Political issues
Agency theory
Qualitative research
North Cyprus

* Correspondence to. Tel.: þ44 1865 483832; fax: þ
E-mail addresses: muhammet@cypruspremier.co

brookes.ac.uk (L. Altinay), p.m.burns@brighton.ac.uk
ucf.edu (F. Okumus).

0261-5177/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.016

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates ways in which political obstacles inhibit the formulation and implementation of
sustainable tourism development in small-island developing states through the example of North
Cyprus. The methodology draws on in-depth interviews and participant observation of significant actors
in the tourism sector. The research findings suggest that understanding the intricate political system and
power structure in a society is the key to understanding sustainable tourism policy development,
planning and implementation. In the case of North Cyprus, policy development was found to be
a product of political influence (referred to as ego-driven politics in the text), specifically the use of public
resources as an instrument for political power, retention and that the politicisation of the public sector is
the underlying cause of the weakened progress in sustainable tourism development. It is therefore
essential to have a clear understanding of political issues, key political actors’ interests and how to
mitigate personal interests to facilitate and maintain sustainable tourism development in such small
states.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Small-island developing states (SIDS in UN terminology) have
certain shared socio-economic and political characteristics, which
place them in a very low position within the international political
economy. The particularities of North Cyprus and its problems
associated with political and economic isolation, institutional
governance, and personalised political structures (Alipour & Kilic,
2005) can be located in a broader SIDS analytical narrative. These
include communication and trading structures (such as physical
distance from markets) that inflate the price of imports and place
exports at a competitive disadvantage; labour markets characterised
by a limited skills base and reliance on expatriates; limited land area
and non-existence of extractive minerals (with a very few exceptions
such as bauxite in Jamaica, gold in Fiji, and oil in Trinidad) coupled
with reliance on a limited range of primary commodity exports
(typically tropical fruit and sugar cane); and finally small, frag-
mented domestic markets that lack critical mass (Milne, 1992).

44 1865 483878.
m (M. Yasarata), laltinay@

(P. Burns), fokumus@mail.

The politics of tourism is a struggle for power and underpinned
by the question cui bono (who benefits?) as Strange (1994), in
discussing concepts of the international political economy, puts it.
Power governs the interaction of those individuals, organisations,
and agencies that influence or try to influence the formulation of
tourism policy and also the manner in which it is implemented
(Altinay & Bowen, 2006). In particular, in developing countries,
formulation of sustainable tourism policies and plans and their
implementation are impeded as a result of power struggles and
political manoeuvring among key actor groups including govern-
ment, private sector, political parties, local government and
communities (Altinay, Var, Hines, & Hussain, 2007; Tosun, 2000).

Central to planning for any sector, including tourism, is the
measure of centralisation (and personalised politics) in any given
country. While the nature of planning seems to be somewhat
decentralized in advanced economies (the so-called ‘developed
world’), the opposite prevails in many developing countries, where
tourism planning is often centralized and most decisions are made
through government intervention rather than pluralism (Choi &
Sirakaya, 2006; Inskeep, 1991; Tosun & Timothy, 2001). For example,
Tosun (2000) claims that political structures or systems determine
pre-conditions for participation in the tourism developing process.
That is to say, the ruling elites of developing countries rationalise

mailto:muhammet@cypruspremier.com

mailto:laltinay@brookes.ac.uk

mailto:p.m.burns@brighton.ac.uk

mailto:fokumus@mail.ucf.edu

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356346

their decisions under cover of bureaucratic traditions (Shamsul-
Haque, 2007): unwilling to give up the potential for personal gain for
the sake of community benefits. In line with these arguments, an
assumption underpinning the present paper is that governments
must communicate with and involve the local population in plan-
ning and management decisions while offering a fair distribution of
the benefits and costs among the full range of stakeholders (Tosun &
Timothy, 2001).

However, developing countries are oftentimes deficient in
developing and implementing those policies and regulations as
tourism is perceived as an isolated and superficial economic tool
(Alipour & Kilic, 2005) concerned with satisfying the needs of rich
foreigners rather than a strategic imperative for poverty alleviation
and wealth creation. For example, while investigating and exploring
the roots of unsustainable tourism development at local level in case
of Urgup, Turkey, Tosun and Jenkins (1998) conclude that, short-
sighted policies of political and economic expedience promoted
the rapid emergence of mass tourism resulting in environmental
degradation and weakened, fragmented social structures. This in
turn resulted in the local community being disenfranchised and
disconnected from the natural and economic resources upon which
that type of tourism was built.

The implicit (rather than explicit) intellectual framework for the
paper is entrenched in a number of sub-disciplines and conceptual
areas including structuration, international political economy, the
politics of power, and the nuances of environmental sustainability.
Drawing on a wide range of literature and an empirical case study
undertaken in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC), this
paper investigates how political obstacles inhibit formulation
and implementation of sustainable tourism development in small-
island developing states. North Cyprus is a useful case for study
because, apart from sharing many characteristics of small, stressed,
post-conflict economies, it has suffered both from the well
rehearsed political problems between Turkish and Greek Cypriots
and decades of isolation. It is hoped that this paper will illuminate
both external and internal political challenges faced by tourism and
highlight the options that other destinations in a similar position
may consider as part of their approach to sustainable tourism
development becomes more complex in a rapidly changing polit-
ical and financial world.

2. Literature review

There have been a series of tourism planning paradigms that
pertain to participation. Getz (1987) identified four broad
approaches which can be thought of as a staged development of
tourism planning philosophy: i) civic boosterism, ii) an economic or
industry-oriented approach, iii) a physical/spatial approach, and iv)
a community-oriented approach which emphasises the role that
the destination community plays in the tourism experience. Each
tradition has had a different stimulus and explanation placing
varying emphases on technical, economic, social, environmental
and political issues.

As early as 1980 the UNWTO (1980) suggested that many
tourism master plans were prepared but rarely implemented as
intended (a point reiterated by Burns, 2004). The reasons, as Hall
(2000) and others suggest, are that they are too complex, finan-
cially impractical, and somewhat disconnected from the institu-
tional arrangements of particular destinations. Moreover, such
plans are unrealistic with regard to the expectations of coordina-
tion, cooperation and participation and political management. The
sophisticated master planning approach of Gunn (1977) and Baud-
Bovy (1982) have proven unwieldy; the complexity of tourism
multipliers is often misused or abused (see the discussion in Burns,
1999; de Kadt, 1979a, 1979b); and the energy required to effect

cross-community involvement beyond public relations, rarely
employed. However, although each tradition has proven essentially
unworkable on its own, it has been argued that it is important to
draw the best examples from them, to work towards an integrated
planning structure (Burns & Holden, 1995; Getz, 1987; Hall, 2000) –
in particular towards a sustainable approach to tourism planning.
As Hall (2000:41) asserts:

‘.a sustainable tourism industry requires a commitment by all
parties involved in the planning process to sustainable devel-
opment principles. Only through such widespread commitment
can the long-term integration of social, environmental and
economic, as well as cultural and political goals be attained.’
(Hall, 2000:41)

Aligning these goals is not easy: destinations must choose
a strategy that not only reflects their political zeitgeist, but also one
that will achieve both short and long-term stated aspirations.
Underpinning such choices must be the capacity to foster and
steward resources for the future. The private sector tends to use
a market-oriented approach, while the public sector tends to take
a supply oriented (resource-based) approach to tourism develop-
ment (Altinay et al., 2007). There is a natural contradiction between
the danger of destroying the environment (what the tourists come
to see) and the commercial imperatives (both in terms of quick
returns for investors and governments’ desire to generate tax
revenues). This contradiction creates political complications for the
development of sustainable tourism in any destination.

Watters (1984) describes the shape of such economies with the
acronym MIRAB, which comprises: outward migration (MI);
a dependence on high levels of remittances resulting from the
migration (R); overseas aid (A) receipts (often from former colonial/
administrative power) to cover trade deficits, and a reliance on the
bureaucracy (i.e. the government) (B) for job creation. For many
SIDS this situation is, along with fishing, tourism and perhaps
offshore banking, the only option for legal economic stability
although it should be noted that SIDS are vulnerable to influence by
criminal activities such as money laundering through casino
gambling (NCSR, 2000) and the inevitable social problems caused
by the type of tourism associated with large casinos. These char-
acteristics do allow for generalisations to be made.

There is a firmly established trend for tourism destinations in
a whole range of economic circumstances (advanced, restructuring,
post-conflict, post-colonial and so on) to recognise that sustainable
development, including tourism, should meet stakeholder needs
far beyond the simplistic dualism of those involved in supply and
demand. Increasingly, communities that have a direct geographical,
locational, political, or economic interest in tourism’s development
have been placed central in the needs-satisfaction equation (cf.
Burns & Novelli, 2008). The roots to this trend lay in the Brundtland
report (1987), from which emerged the triangle of sustainable
development (economic responsibility, social inclusion, environ-
mental stewardship) that has become the bedrock of 21st century
politico-environmental thinking (Gossling, 2003). This holistic
approach to development, based in part on the optimism of pere-
stroikaand glasnost as they paved the way for the end of the Cold
War and what promised, at the time, to be a concordance of
stability and international cooperation lay the foundations of a new
political concurrence on environmentalism (broadly summarised
as the Kyoto Agreement) which remains somewhat fuzzy but the
climate change arguments of the Inter-governmental Panel on
Climate Change appears to be forcing inevitable agreement towards
environmental matters and sustainability taking centre stage.

This trend applies to planning and implementation of sustainable
tourism and the consideration of all socio-economic development as
well as the interests of various stakeholder groups, or perhaps more

Table 1
Key statistical figures about the tourism industry in Northern Cyprus.

Years Foreign tourism
demand (except
for Turkey)

Tourism
demand
from Turkey

Total
demand

Tourism
income

% of
GDP

Occupancy
rate of
hotels

1995 87,733 298,026 385,759 218.9 3.3 37.5
1996 75,985 289,131 365,116 175.6 2.7 32.5
1997 73,000 326,364 399,364 183.2 3.0 35.3
1998 77,230 315,797 393,027 186.0 3.0 37.3
1999 79,615 334,400 414,015 192.8 3.1 37.5
2000 85,241 347,712 432,953 198.3 3.2 37.6
2001 87,348 227,720 365,097 93.7 3.0 30.9
2002 109,364 316,189 425,553 114.1 3.2 31.3
2003 129,794 340,083 469,877 178.8 3.2 35.7
2004 164,268 434,744 599,012 288.3 3.4 39.2
2005 164,756 488,023 652,779 328.8 3.1 38.6
2006 143,116 572,633 715,749 303.2 2.4 31.0
2007 156,456 634,580 791,036 376.3 2.7 29.9

Compiled from Ministry of Economics and Tourism (2007, 2008, 2009) and SPO
(2007).

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356 347

accurately, actors. Effective planning and implementation for
sustainable tourism then, is dependent on the cooperation of many
players and framed by its global condition of being multi-sectoral
and framed by socio-political complexities (Burns, 2008). Choi
and Sirakaya (2006), in particular, claim that sustainable tourism
development inevitably generates political and power struggles over
the equitable use of requisite physical, cultural, and financial
resources required. This lack of equitable access to the decision-
making processes is, according to Liu and Wall (2006) and Tosun
(2000) particularly affects participation of local communities in
some developing countries where decisions are manipulated and
dominated by political elites and centralist bureaucrats.

Social structures, networks and interactions (cf. Giddens, 1984,
theory of structuration) and the way the government and political
structure is institutionalized in a country also have some bearing on
the tourism development and implementation (Alipour & Kilic,
2005; Burns, 2004; Hall, 1994; Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005). The
complex structure of society with its competing ‘actor totalities’
(Giddens, 1984), short-sighted political conflicts, frequent changes
of governments all lead towards changes of plans and imple-
mentation barriers being thrown up (Hall & Jenkins, 1995).
Contextualized in its social and political structures, tourism plan-
ning for SIDS can be seen as a relatively distinct subset in the debate
surrounding tourism, its planning, and impacts. There are links to
be drawn between corporate strategic thinking of multinational
tourism companies (such as hotel groups, airlines and tour opera-
tors) and the ability (or lack thereof) of governments to plan and
implement sustainable tourism policies. Government planning will
often incorporate measures to diversify the economy, and typically
have goals such as achieving fiscal stability by ensuring that an
increasing proportion of the national budget comes from local
sources (i.e. attempting to broaden the economy beyond MIRAB
framed dependency) and to channel a greater measure of devel-
opment assistance to the rural and outer regions.

3. Tourism development in North Cyprus

Cyprus has a history of modern commercial tourism that dates
back to the 1930s (Storrs, 1930), which peaked first in the 1960s.
However, with the Turkish intervention in 1974 after a military coup
in Cyprus, the subsequent political fracture of the island into
a Turkish north and Greek south, tourism development was
lopsided in favour of the south for almost four decades. While Greek
Cypriots had the opportunity for some development of their socio-
economic structures (including links with the global economy)
Turkish Cypriots had to focus on basic needs in order to sustain their
physical conditions (EIU, 1995). Stephen (1997:32) captures the
essence of the problem:

‘Economically isolated, the Turkish Cypriot community has found
itself in a backwater as far as trade and industry and employment
are concerned, and does not participate in the economic expan-
sion of the country and the development of its resources. Many of
the estimated 20,000 refugees and displaced persons in the
Turkish Cypriot enclaves are unemployed, and their enforced
idleness emphasises the isolation of the community, whose
economy is sustained by financial assistance and relief supplies
from Turkey. about one-third of the Turkish Cypriot population
is estimated to need some form of welfare relief.’

The tourism industry has been one of the main sectors in
Northern Cyprus economy. Key statistical data about the tourism
industry in Northern Cyprus are presented in Table 1. There are over
850 tourism and hospitality businesses, most of which are small
family run bars, cafes, restaurants and gift shops. The accommo-
dation sub-sector is the main component of the tourism industry

and as of the end of 2008 there were 119 accommodation estab-
lishments (hotels, motels, holiday villages) with a bed capacity of
15,540 (Ministry of Economics and Tourism, 2009). The tourism
industry contributed to the GDP of North Cyprus by $303.2 and
$376.2 million in 2006 and 2007. The tourism industry created 8208
jobs in 2007 which is about 7% in the total employment (Ministry
of Economics and Tourism, 2009). Main tourist markets have been
Turkey, Britain and Germany. The annual occupancy rate for
hospitality organisations was around 30% in 2007.

A comparison of North and South Cyprus through a range
of standard macro-economic indicators shows, in most cases,
a considerable comparative advantage for South Cyprus over North
Cyprus. For example, GNP is nearly 10 times higher and GNP 2.5
times higher in 2003. With regard to main tourism indicators North
Cyprus attracted relatively few tourists compared to South Cyprus
in 2007 – indeed South Cyprus attracted more than seven times as
many tourists (EIU, 2007). This resulted in comparatively low
tourism revenue for the North. The latter also has an under-capacity
of beds compared to South Cyprus. While South Cyprus has turned
into a well-established destination, North Cyprus has struggled
to achieve economic growth and escape from its political and
economic dependence on Turkey.

Tourism has brought its share of negative effects. So, whilst
South Cyprus has experienced a rapid, profitable growth since 1974
it has been largely unplanned. Consequently, the indigenous flora
and fauna have been damaged and are endangered. Moreover,
tourism development has created architectural (visual) pollution
and an insufficient water resource (Ioannides, Apostolopoulos, &
Sonmez, 2001). In North Cyprus, international sanctions have
prevented overall economic growth and have also generated
problems for the tourism sector. High dependence on Turkish
tourists causes problems such as short average length of stay and
a reduced flow of foreign currency. Turkish clientele constitute the
majority of casino gamblers (Altinay, Altinay, & Bicak, 2002) espe-
cially since the Republic of Turkey banned casinos in 1998.
Economic and political crises in and around Turkey have influenced
the tourism industry in North Cyprus (Okumus, Altinay, & Roper,
2005). North Cyprus also lacks variation in its tourism offering,
suffers from low occupancy rates, relatively poor service quality
and lack of or insufficient infrastructure. However, contrary to
South Cyprus, North Cyprus does not suffer from the same level of
negative impacts resulting from mass tourism (Altinay, 2000).

A consequence of the restricted tourism development in the
north has been that the natural environment remained, for the
most part, undisturbed (Altinay et al., 2002). However, the effects of

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356348

political and economic semi-isolation as well as problems such as
a lack of marketing in the past, shortage of qualified staff, erratic
patterns of tourist arrivals and indirect flights (Altinay et al., 2002),
have limited the development of tourism. As a result, uninten-
tionally North Cyprus has avoided the heavy concentrations of
resorts that characterise many Mediterranean coastlines. Only the
coastal area of Kyrenia – where new hotels and villas are under
construction – shows signs of transformation. But there is little
doubt that North Cyprus is now at the threshold of rapid tourism
development and in a sense this reinforces the environment at
centre stage in the local tourism debate.

The environmental phenomenon, which arose as an interna-
tional issue in the 1970s and which has been considered on
different scales and in different arrangements has, since the late
1980s, assumed a position on the political agenda of the Turkish
Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). The environment was first
studied as a distinct subject in the TRNC as part of the Third Five-
Year Development Plan (TFYDP) (SPO, 1996), and as a result, various
public organisations have begun to develop and implement envi-
ronmental policies.

The accident of history and politics that left North Cyprus out of
the tourism development scramble that afflicted the rest of the
Mediterranean may be an environmental silver lining to what
seemed to be a development cloud. Consumer patterns and trends
seem to indicate growing concern about the environment and the
emergence of a rejection of spoilt, overdeveloped environments
(Scottish Enterprise, 2003). This evidence clearly points towards
the obvious developmental conclusion: if tourism is to be
successful and sustained then North Cyprus’ natural and built
environments must be conserved. The government has a major
mediating role to play given the likely conflict between different
actors that is bound to surround much tourism development in
North Cyprus. The experience in South Cyprus of the late 1960s and
early 1970s was an environmental catastrophe and amounted to
the construction of a high buildings and concrete hotels along the
length of sandy beaches in the whole of Cyprus (Andronikou, 1979).
Though on a different scale, from the point of view of environ-
mental destruction, the same mistakes were committed by the
Greek Cypriots in Limassol, Larnaca and, to a certain extent, in Ayia
Napa and Phapos (Andronikou, 1987; Ioannides, 1992; Lockhart,
1994, 1997; Lockhart, Drakakis-Smith, & Schembri, 1993; Witt,
1991). From the tourism point of view, the North Cyprus Third
Five-Year Development Plan (TFYDP) was important in that it
emphasised the main objectives and identified the main problems
encountered by the Turkish Cypriot tourism industry (SPO,
1996:230–254). Overall, the TFYDP drew attention to the environ-
mental dimension within its introductory paragraph:

The recent economic, social and political developments in the
world have increased the relationships and connections of
countries with one and another, thus making the foundation of
new economic policies inevitable. The concept of development
has been changing, and the environmental dimension, along
with social and economic dimensions, has been reflected on
development strategies. The processes of integration, taking
place on a global scale, are intensifying the international tourism
movements, thus raising the competition among tourism-based
economies, and the rising environmental consciousness in our
world makes up the main theme of this competition (SPO,
1996:230).

But the development and implementation of environmental
planning and a sustainable approach to tourism development was
until that time especially constrained by political realities resulting
from its isolation.

4. Methods

The approach to data collection was framed by the ethnographic
tradition of participant observation as it is particularly suited to
observing interpersonal group processes. It focuses on the emic
perspective in generating the kind of thick description needed in
‘writing culture’ (Van Maanen, 1988). One of the study participation
organisations – the North Cyprus Tourism Office (NCTO) and its
UK-based directors – acted as gatekeepers and provided ready
access (Okumus, Altinay, & Roper, 2007) to a network of Tourism
Ministry and other government departments, tour operators, travel
agents, hoteliers and airlines. Specifically, the principal investigator
attended 3 tourism advisory meetings and 16 sub-advisory
committee meetings of the then nascent NCTO. The meetings
provided a major opportunity to gather rich, qualitative data during
the tourism policy and planning process. These meetings also
provided an opportunity for the principal investigator to select and
interview the full range of participants and so build up a clear
picture of the past as well as the present. Ninety two interviews
were also conducted to support the data generated from the
observation of meetings and increase the richness and enhance the
validity of the findings. Interviews were conducted with different
stakeholder groups including central government officials (minis-
ters, members of parliament, mayors), hoteliers, travel agents,
operators, airline company representatives, NGO representatives
(Civil Community [society] Associations, as they are known in
North Cyprus) over a four year period Table 2.

Purposive sampling technique was utilized to select the infor-
mants for the investigation. Purposive sampling enables researchers
to use their judgement to select people that will best enable them to
answer their research questions and to meet their objectives
(Hemmington, 1999; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003). Infor-
mants were chosen based on their experience, role and influence in
policymaking and implementation of policies in the tourism
industry. The purposely chosen sample included representatives of
different views and thus enlarged the perspective, and added rich-
ness to the research.

Some of the informants were personally known and some other
informants were approached through close friends and colleagues
so that research access (Okumus et al., 2007) to them could be
achieved. The interviews included a consistent set of open-ended
and unstructured questions that were designed to elicit discussions
about tourism development and the tourism policy and planning
process, past and present allowing their voices to flow through. For
example, the lead field researcher asked government officials about
tourism plans, the degree of existing local participation in decision-
making and cooperation and the nature of interrelations between
agencies and government departments in the tourism planning
process, as well as about specific examples where this might have
taken place. They were also questioned about their understanding
of community-based and sustainable tourism development, what
these terms meant to them, and whether or not they felt that
each approach was important (Appendix I shows main interview
questions).

Acknowledging the close social proximity between some of
the actors and the principal investigator, the acquaintances and
conversations were varied: headmen, local taxi drivers, shop
keepers, tour guides, street vendors, academics, officials working in
government offices, families and so forth all adding to the rich data
being gathered. The meetings with local people usually took the
form of ‘friendly conversations’ (Spradley, 1979:58) in traditional
Mediterranean cafés (social spaces) where local people gathered to
drink coffee, play board or card games, and talk about issues in their
village, town or country.

Table 2
Interviews with key stakeholders.

Central and Local Government

Status/Occupation of Interviewees Organisation

Statistics and Research Director State Planning Organisation, Prime Ministry
Former State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister And Tourism Minister Ministry of Tourism
Former Tourism Undersecretary Ministry of Tourism
Former State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister And Tourism Minister Ministry of Tourism
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Tourism Ministry Ministry of Tourism
Former Tourism Undersecretary Ministry of Tourism
State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister And Tourism Minister Ministry of Tourism
Tourism Undersecretary Ministry of Tourism
Former Tourism Master Plan Coordinator, Now Tourism Research and

Development Unit Coordinator
Ministry of Tourism

Tourism Education and Training Coordinator Ministry of Tourism
Tourism Education and Training Officer Ministry of Tourism
Public Relations, Department of Marketing and Promotion Ministry of Tourism
Director of Marketing and Promotion Department Ministry of Tourism
Director of Tourism Planning Department Ministry of Tourism
Tourism Marketing and Promotion Officer Ministry of Tourism
Research and Development Unit Officer Ministry of Tourism
Tourism Planning Officer, Department of Tourism Planning Ministry of Tourism
Tourism Planning Officer, Department of Tourism Planning Ministry of Tourism
Tourism Planning Officer, Department of Tourism Planning Ministry of Tourism
Executive Coordinator For Europe, North Cyprus Tourism Centre in London Ministry of Tourism
Former Tourism Representative For North Cyprus Tourism Office in London Ministry of Tourism
Chief Town Planner, Department of Town Planning Deputy Prime Ministry and Tourism Ministry
Town Planner, Department of Town Planning Deputy Prime Ministry and Tourism Ministry
Director of Town Planning Office, Department of Town Planning Deputy Prime Ministry and Tourism Ministry
Transport Minister Ministry of Transport
Director of Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport
Director of Department of Road Transport Ministry of Transport
Former Director of Interior and Housing Ministry Ministry of Interior and Housing
Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Ministry of Health and Environment
Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Ministry of Health and Environment
Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Ministry of Health and Environment
Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Ministry of Health and Environment
Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection, Ministry of Health and Environment
TRNC Representative in London, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence
Interior and Rural Minister Ministry of Interior and Housing
Private Secretary to Interior and Rural Minister, also former Mayor of Kyrenia Ministry of Interior and Housing
Finance Attach to TRNC London Office Ministry of Economy and Finance
Director of Budget Ministry of Economy and Finance
Credit Officer, Development Bank Ministry of Economy and Finance
Culture Attach, TRNC London Office Ministry of Education and Culture
Chief Officer, Department of Antiquities and Museums Ministry of Education and Culture
Research Unit Officer Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Director of Evkaf Foundation Prime Ministry
Board of Director Evkaf Foundation Prime Ministry
Director of Communication and Architecture Department Kyrenia Municipality
Cultural Activity Organiser Kyrenia Municipality
Mayor of Alsancak, Kyrenia Alsancak Municipality
Member of Municipal Council Alsancak Municipality
Chief Worker Alsancak Municipality
Mayor of Lapta Lapta Municipality
Hoteliers
Owner and Director Acapulco Holiday Village (., 562 beds)
Owner and Director Celebrity & Chateau Lambusa (., 288 beds)
Managing Director Club Lapethos (., 230 Beds)
Manager Golden Bay Hotel (., 72)
Owner and Director Kyrenia Oscar Hotel (., 250 beds)
Assistant Manager Mare Monte Hotel (., 188 beds)
Owner and Director Pia Bella Hotel (., 72 Beds)
Owner and Director Top Set (., 54 beds)
Owner and Director Altinkaya Armoni (., 88 beds)
Owner and Director Ballapais Garden (., 34 beds)
Owner and director River Side Holiday Village (., 194 beds)
Managing Director Riviera Mokamp (., 68 beds)
Managing Director Green Coast Bungalows (., 74 beds)
Owner and Director Espiri Hotel Apartment (., 86 beds)
Owner and Director Club Simena (., 52 beds)
Owner and Director King’s Court (., 56 Beds)
Travel Agents
Owner and Director, North Cyprus, Nicosia Tursan Tourism
Owner and Director North Cyprus, Kyrenia Ornek Tourism
Owner and Director North Cyprus, Kyrenia Apple Tour
Owner and Director North Cyprus, Kyrenia. Biral Tourism

(continued on next page)

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356 349

Table 2 (continued )

Central and Local Government

Status/Occupation of Interviewees Organisation

Airlines
Cyprus Turkish Airline Director of UK Office, In London
Cyprus Turkish Airline Company Secretary in UK, London
Istanbul Airline Marketing Manager, UK, London
Cyprus Turkish Airlines Assistance Finance Manager, North Cyprus Head Office
Tour Operators
CTA Holidays Director of UK Office, In London
CTA Holidays Company Secretary in UK, London
Cyprus Paradise Owner and Managing Director, UK, London
Celebrity Holidays Manager UK, London
President Holidays Marketing Manager, UK, London
Anatolian Sky Owner and Managing Director, UK, Birmingham
Interest and Activity Holidays Owner and Managing Director, UK London
Non-Governmental Organisations
Lecturer, Head of Tourism School Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta
Lecturer Department of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University,

Famagusta
Lecturer Tourism and Hospitality, American University
Secretary For Society of International Development Active member of North Cyprus Society For Protection of Birds and Nature and

Pro-Action for A Sustainable Development, North Cyprus, Kyrenia
Member of North Cyprus Construction and Architecture Chamber Association North Cyprus Construction and Architecture Chamber Association
President of Green Peace Action Group Green Peace Action Group
President of North Cyprus Hoteliers Association North Cyprus Hoteliers Association
President of North Cyprus Travel Agents Association North Cyprus Travel Agents Association
President of North Cyprus Restaurant Owners Association Member of the

Association
North Cyprus Restaurant Owners Association

President of the Society For Protection of Turtles in North Cyprus, also restaurant
owner

The Society For Protection of Turtles in North Cyprus

General Secretary of Turkish Municipality Association Turkish Municipality Association

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356350

There is no one ‘right’ way to analyze such voluminous quali-
tative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). They can be interpretative
and eclectic in nature and researchers can employ a ‘tight’, more
theoretically driven approach, or a ‘loose’, inductively oriented
approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). For the present
study, both inductive and deductive data analysis modes were
employed. A broad coding scheme was derived from the literature
review. Much of the data analysis consisted of breaking down the
interview transcripts, observation notes as well as documents
into manageable blocks in order to classify them under each code/
grouping. Fieldnotes were regrouped after further analysis
according to the coding scheme. The original text was cross-refer-
enced so that the source could be traced and the process of
abstraction could be examined and replicated. This was carried out
first by the principal investigator and then by the other researchers.
Alongside the theory driven approach, the inductive mode of
analysis was also employed which helped the researchers analyze
the data freely without following a framework or where the
coding schema was inappropriate. This was undertaken by re-
reading transcripts, fieldnotes and collected documents, identifying
emerging themes and incorporated them into the research find-
ings. Overall, employing these two approaches helped to draw
meaning from the data and suggested ways of obtaining deeper
insights into the formulation and implementation of tourism
development in North Cyprus. As the data were collected over
a long period of time, the majority of respondents were approached
and met again for further questions about the first interview. They
were also updated about the progress of the project. Additional
feedback gained from this second round was also incorporated into
the findings. Through these iterative data analysis processes a case
study report (Yin, 2003) was developed and refined. Providing
a ‘thick’ (Geertz, 1973) or ‘rich’ (Eisenhardt, 1989) description of the
formulation and implementation of tourism development in North
Cyprus assisted in identifying key themes, issues and patterns. The

research findings presented below represent and highlight key
issues related to the tourism development in North Cyprus.

5. Findings

There are several approaches that could have been used to
present and discuss the data. However, there is an advantage in
grouping together sets of informants (rather than say, by emergent/
topic theme or by frame analysis) in that a more holistic view is
seen thus avoiding data fragmentation that could arise from these
other means of presentation (useful as they are for the analysis
stage). In this case, the groups are divided into two logical cate-
gories: core and peripheral influencers.

5.1. Core influencers (the political power base)

5.1.1. Government officials
At the outset, perhaps not surprisingly, Government depart-

ments seemed unprepared for effective environmental planning.
Indeed, one informant, recalled:

‘We established a department and then we added the word ‘envi-
ronment’ to the existing Ministry of Health. Thus, having
established the Ministry of Health and Environment, we, as
a department, began functioning under that institute. Our authority
was limited to controlling environmental pollution and to the
inspection of littering. Unlike other Environmental Conservation
Departments in the world, we were not given the authority of
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), nor were we authorised to
choose environmental protection areas. Moreover, we did not
consider how to overcome the shortage of qualified personnel.
Since we did not have environmental planners, we hired personnel
from different branches, such as architects and civil engineers. We
acquired trained environmental engineers later on..’

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356 351

Later, up to June 1999, documentation shows that 37 EIA reports
had been dealt within accordance with EIA regulations. Of those 37
reports, 35 were approved and two were not approved. 23 of
the discussed reports concerned tourism investments, twelve
concerned industrial investments and two concerned rock mining
(EPP&SCR, 1999:45). However, further interviews with the envi-
ronmental planners of what was then called the Department of
Environmental Conservation emphasised that a number of prob-
lems existed in the implementation of EIA reports in the TRNC. For
example, according to informants, EIA reports lacked a sufficient
and reliable database and did not have technical tools and
equipment. So, the EIA procedure could not be used effectively.
Furthermore, developers who saw the EIA report as a bureaucratic
hindrance asked politicians to pressurise the then Department of
Environmental Conservation to evaluate their EIA report quickly. As
one of the informants stated:

‘Our department has over 30 reports to work on. We are eval-
uating these in order, one by one. But to do this we need time. In
some cases, we are pressurised by political bodies to speed up
the evaluations, and we are left in a situation where we have to
do the evaluation in a hurry. Therefore, how well the evaluation
has been done is questionable. A parliamentarian (in the
government) called me the other day. Someone he knew was
waiting for his report. We were asked to complete this imme-
diately, so we had to work on that one, leaving aside the others’.

So, it seems that there is a great pressure on the officials as
a result of the demands of the developers. In addition, politicians
could easily change and even abolish some of the protective rules.
The majority of informants claimed that the government policy was
not always clear and could be contradictory. Political consider-
ations, as Hall (1994) and Hall and Jenkins (1995) also argue could
take precedence over rational policy and consistency. Informants
sometimes put it more strongly – in the public sector, political
values over-rode managerial values; and so long-term management
objectives were displaced for short-term political advantage.
Political leaders pushed ahead with projects and investments
without an efficient appraisal of the economic, environmental and
social benefits to the local community. Within this pressurised
political context, it is clear that the implementation of sustainable
development policies in the environmental and physical plans was
liable to change depending on the politicians’ attitudes and their
values.

In the TRNC, in general, there has been a top-to-bottom devel-
opment administrative system. The Prime Minister and the Council
of Ministers are responsible for the preparation and implementa-
tion of National Development Plans. Hall and Jenkins (1995) argue
that the sources of power in tourism policy, planning and promo-
tion affect the location, structure and behaviour of agencies
responsible for tourism policy formulation and implementation.
Indeed, the position of tourism in the bureaucratic structure of the
TRNC political system has shifted in relation to the relative priori-
ties of the government. But in recognition of the significance of the
tourism industry to the TRNC economy and the impact of tourism
on the wealth of Turkish Cypriots the new government in 1993
created a separate ministry, the ‘Ministry of Tourism’ (MoT) and
tied it with the State Ministry and Deputy Prime Ministry.
Integrating the Ministry of Tourism with the State Ministry and
Deputy Prime Ministry was seen as an important initiative. As
a senior official within the Ministry of Tourism put it:

‘There is never an ideal way of organising government to balance
the interests of various people. Now, I am satisfied that we, within
the Ministry of Tourism, have the mechanism to influence other
ministries and various departments within other ministries,

because we have a tourism minister who also at the same time is
the State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the country.’

However, all new Ministers and Undersecretaries have tended to
apply their own policies. The officials say, among themselves, that
‘every political party attempts to follow its own course’. Indeed, as
one of the officials stated:

‘It is very important to have ‘sustainability’ in tourism planning
and policies, but the sustainability of these is not enough. The
sustainability in the posts of those who plan, formulate and
carry out policies is also highly important. As governments
change, undersecretaries and even bureaucrats change, too. As
a result of the planning and application differences between the
new and the previous team, the required ‘national tourism
policy’ is replaced by ‘trial and error’ type tourism policies.’

However, matters are not as clear as the informant suggests.
Between 2001 and 1993, three ministers variously supported and
tried to implement the preparation of a Tourism Master Plan for
inclusion in the Third Five-Year Development Plan (SPO, 2007). The
first ruling coalition drew up the draft of the plan, and the following
ruling party completed the plan. The third ruling party began
work on its implementation. However, problems are occasionally
recognised, as seen by the words of the Minister of Tourism
regarding the implementation process in tourism planning – the
Third Five-Year Development Plan.

‘Some of our problems have become chronic. However, there is no
problem that cannot be solved through collaborative planning.
The ministry and committee members have different duties, but
we will overcome the problems collaboratively and we will
manage to solve them. We cannot say that tourism is in a very
good situation. The important thing is to identify the situation we
are in, to determine the problems together with the sector, and to
plan what must be done to be able to achieve our goals.’

Thus, it is accepted that the Tourism Development Plans was
merely a product and that planning was a continuous process. We
should also mention here that most of ministry of tourism (state
minister and deputy prime ministers) have no or limited back-
ground and understanding of tourism development and sustain-
ability. Plus bureaucrats and undersecretaries are also similar who
are appointed based on friendship and links with the ruling party
rather than their credentials. Given this it can be difficult to claim
that the tourism plans, policies and their implementation will bring
benefits and achieve some desirable outcomes.

5.1.2. Private sector
The private sector is represented by professional associations

directly involved in tourism – for example, the Turkish Cypriot
Hoteliers Association (KITOB), representing hotel employers and
investors, and the Turkish Cypriot Travel Agencies Association
(KITSAB), representing the travel agencies in the country. Both KITOB
and KITSAB were actively consulted for the development and
planning of tourism in the Tourism Advisory and Sub-Advisory
Committees. For years, the two associations had lobbied the Ministry
of Tourism to prepare a tourism master plan and create a platform on
which they themselves could stand. With the successful acceptance
of their demands, it was apparent that they began to play a more
active role in the tourism planning and development of the country.
However, during the Advisory Committee Meetings they particularly
drew attention to tourism promotion and marketing, so focusing on
their own problems and marketing – while discussing environ-
mental plans and other specific areas of interest in tourism. The
priority to maintain the North Cyprus’s unspoiled nature and its
historical and cultural beauty, which both associations included in

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356352

their publications, was not observed to go beyond rhetoric. Their
emphasis was on how much money was required to attract a certain
number of tourists – with a central market-led approach rather than
an approach that sought a sustainable optimum number of tourists.

On one hand, it can be stated that the formation of the Tourism
Advisory Committee and its Sub-Advisory Committee, as observed
in action, represented a watershed in the planning process in North
Cyprus. On the other hand, one informant from a major hotel
association commented that:

‘For years, tourism has been made into a patchwork and
neglected ministry. Following this negligence, it was affiliated
under the Ministry of State and the Deputy Prime Ministry.
Subsequently, the situation deteriorated even more due to
economic disorder. In spite of its importance, tourism was dealt
with only at ‘undersecretary’ level, and also became the victim
of political instability in the coalition government period,
reflecting the economy in general. Tourism was almost on
the verge of disappearing. Looking at the available data, the
inescapable conclusion is that tourism (became) a tool for
politicians’ benefits.’

The political culture does not change quickly, but at least the
committees involved the various stakeholders. The collaborative
planning process described by Getz (1987) and others, that aims for
the participation of key stakeholders in tourism planning, began to
be applied in pre and post-planning, as well as during the planning
process itself.

The most important purpose, within the meetings, was to
inform all people living in the island about the decisions taken
and to obtain opinions and ideas, thus initiating a collaborative,
participative process in implementing the policies in the ongoing
tourism plan. In initiating the Tourism Advisory Committee and
Sub-Advisory Committees, participation and consensus were
initiated in order to implement the policies in the Tourism Devel-
opment Plan (TRNC SM & DPM, 1998, 1999, 2000). In general, the
practices of these committees received a positive response from all
stakeholders, including hotel owners, agencies, restaurant owners,
associations related to those, government officials and NGOs. The
decisions taken based on participation and consensus principles
were transferred to ‘action plan programmes.’

As a result, a tourism policy, within the TDP and Strategic Plan,
was aimed at promoting the preservation of the natural environ-
ment and human heritage of the country and development of
cultural activities. It was agreed that sustainable tourism principles
would be used to guide all types of tourism development, and
would be aimed at producing sustainable tourism policies. These
would depend upon collaborative planning among participants
that integrated heritage-based tourism, cultural tourism and agro
tourism alongside the sun, sea and sand tourism (TRNC SM & DPM,
1998, 1999, 2000).

‘We have an advantage of not being overdeveloped, and our
natural resources have not been spoiled like other small islands in
the Mediterranean; especially we have learned from the mistakes
of our neighbour [South Cyprus], our endeavours [in Tourism
Development Plan, Advisory Committees] have been directed
towards producing policies based on plans and programmes with
a participatory understanding. Our North Cyprus tourism vision,
in a general description, is ‘sustainable and quality tourism’ and
for this prevailing understanding is conserve rather than exhaust,
total quality rather than shoddy products.’

This provides a positive final picture despite the political power
struggle behind planning that also emerges from a more historic
consideration of the North Cyprus case.

5.2. Peripheral influencers

5.2.1. Publicly owned business
This section considers just one public organisation that was

actively involved in the tourism sector in the TRNC: the Vakif Trust
KTTI Ltd. – a company established in November 1974 to reactivate
tourism facilities in North Cyprus, and to run and maintain the
existing hotels. In 1974, 43% of the total bed capacity (1492 beds out
of 3488 total bed capacity) in North Cyprus was under the control of
this company (SPO, 1996). For many years, the hotels belonging to
the company were either rented or sold to the private sector as part
of the private sector encouragement and the government’s priva-
tisation policy. This was not the case, though, for the Mare Monte
Hotel, with 188 beds. There were two reasons for such non-priva-
tisation: first, a high number of local workers were employed there,
and second, two ministers from the governing party possessed
a large vote potential in the region where it was located.

Local organisations told the government that the people
working in the hotel, local inhabitants of the area would not vote
for them at the coming elections. Consequently, the privatisation of
the hotel was prevented through pressure on the central political
power. Local people said that the reason for the demand to stay in
the public sector was that workers of government-owned hotels
were paid more and had better social security compared with those
employed in private sector hotels. Indeed, with regard to the Mare
Monte Hotel and other cases, it became clear from listening to
informants and from participant observation within the commu-
nity that the political culture of North Cyprus had allowed
politicians to make rules and regulations in such a way as to be to
their own benefit. As stated by an informant:

‘politicians in this country want the public to appeal to them for
support even for the smallest things just because they like local
people to say that ‘I was not able to do it without that minister’s
or that parliamentarian’s help.’ Politicians think that in this way
they can increase the number of their votes. This is true; I myself
saw citizens voting by getting little help from a politician.’

In relation to this problem, another informant stated that: ‘This
country is governed by the philosophy of the job for the man, not
the man for the job.’ The officials, NGOs, hotel owners (and travel
agencies and other tourism organisations) and citizens blame this
political system for the difficulty in applying policies based on
sustainable development principles, and for not solving many
problems, including the lack of political recognition of the country.
As one official stated:

‘We are asked to formulate and implement policy and planning
by politicians. This includes the sustainable development
policies that we have formed in the development plans.
However, we do not make the final decision. In reality, the final
decision making is political and the implementation of the
policies and plans are done by politicians and not by us.’

Many of the problems in carrying out the plans and the delays in
their implementation stem from political disputes and political
benefits – and from political pressure on the people in charge,
According to an informant who specifically indicated that it was
difficult to apply the concept of sustainability within the North
Cyprus political context:

‘I was appointed in 1989 and have remained in office for 10 years
without being changed, the only director in this country not to
be so. I do not get involved in party politics much; I am a tech-
nical man, only working in planning and implementation. If the
new government replaces me, a new person will be appointed.
Naturally he will not know much about planning, and so there

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356 353

will be problems. When I look at the other departments, I can
see that the longest serving directors have been in service for 2
years at the most. You cannot come across anyone who has
worked there for 4 years. It is it not easy to get trained and
experienced as a director. If such a director is changed, there will
be problems, not only in implementation of plans or policies but
also in the whole department, and in all the other ministry
departments involved in coordination and cooperation.’

It is obvious that the preparation and implementation of tourism
plans and policies must be freed from the influence of politicians. If
a generalisation is made at this point, in order to implement and to
apply sustainable tourism policies in any small-island state, it
is necessary to consider and question the relationship between
policies and politics.

5.2.2. Non-governmental organizations
Interviews with a selection of NGO leaders revealed that NGOs

were also confronted with limitations of technical and financial
resources. In addition, it was observed that the NGOs in the TRNC
were restricted in their participation in the decision-making and
implementation process of government planning practices.

EPP&SCR (1999:43) reported that only 3% of the 897 organisa-
tions, associations and foundations in the TRNC were involved with
the environment: The North Cyprus Society for Turtle Protection
(NCSTP), the Society for International Development (SID), the Green
Peace Movement (GPM), the Lefke Society of Environment and
Publicity, the Society of Environmental Conservation, the Society of
Pro-Action, the Chamber of Turkish-Cypriot Engineers and Archi-
tects, the National Preservation Trust, the Chamber of Town Plan-
ners and the North Cyprus Society for Bird Protection (KUSKOR). In
general, the environmental NGOs may be said to be successful in
raising issues related to pollution, the use of the coasts, birds,
turtles, metal waste, and the use of agricultural chemicals. Unfor-
tunately, however, their contribution and influence could only be
verbal and they had no active role in the decision-making process.
As one informant stated ‘.we are seen as a threat for politicians to
their ruling power.’ Therefore, NGOs’ achievements were restricted
– for example, they reacted to external decisions. It was evident that
both the publicly owned businesses and the NGOs lacked political
clout to have any major influence on sustainable planning and
development, their concerns being on far more local issues of
employment at individual establishments or concern over a partic-
ular issue. In a sense, the attitude emanating from can be charac-
terised as fatalistic and powerlessness.

Fig. 1. Tourism planning inter-rela

6. Discussion

The findings suggest that in order to understand the tourism
policy and planning processes (especially in the present case,
environmental and sustainability aspects), it is necessary to con-
textualise and problematize them in the political system and power
structure of society as a whole. Policy and planning in practice is the
product of political influence. Hence, it is claimed that politicians
adopt a system of management based on their own values and on
a policy that makes it possible for their party to survive or to stay in
power. As soon as the ruling political party changes, the new party
gives priority to its own ideals, ignoring the policy of the preceding
one. What is more, it changes not only the Undersecretary, which is
merely a political position, but also all the officials at the top and
lower level management, thus replacing them (to quote the officials
themselves) with ‘people supporting their own party’. This, of
course, creates doubt concerning how tourism plans and policies
can be developed and implemented in SIDS that have such a kind of
political culture. Fig. 1 illustrates the inverse relationship between
the planning process and the pressures that shape it. Also seen in
Fig. 1 is the idea of the peripheral actors, NGOs, citizens, consumer
groups and so on as ‘the missing elements.’ Fig. 1, provides a general
schema for the ways in which there is almost a hierarchy of deci-
sions characterised by a range of influences.

In the case of TRNC, it can be seen that personal interests
(especially in the form of ego-politics) have shaped development to
a greater extent than public debates about sustainability and its
virtues in tourism development in North Cyprus. Fig. 2 shows how
the range of peripheral potential influencers ends up in a melting pot
of ideas that is, in the case of TRNC, inevitably mediated by politi-
cians pursuing their own interests. For example, in the case of the
Alagadi special protected area, plans to restrict development in the
area provoked considerable local protest. People affected included
those who had sought and in some cases gained permission to build
in the area and who then found themselves unable to do so. Popular
attitudes emerged which seemed to run counter to the doctrines of
sustainable tourism development theory. Here again is an example
of private interests challenging public orthodoxies about sustain-
ability. It is perhaps not enough for policy makers to follow the ideas
of scholars in the field and expect these to be put into practice in
some quasi-magical way. The academic debates need to be placed
within the day-to-day realities of, in this case, North Cyprus politics,
economics and society. Therefore, the chances of sustainable tourism
development principles holding sway in North Cyprus will only

tionships: the vicious spiral.

Fig. 2. Sublimation of wider needs under political ambitions.

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356354

improve with three conditions. First, tourism development should to
be beneficial to a wide spectrum of actors – particularly those with
urgent and immediate needs, and especially as regards to employ-
ment opportunities for local people. Secondly, there should be
a thriving and independent set of civil institutions, able and willing
to provide a platform for voices in favour of conservation and
long-term protection of the environment. Finally, there should be
a long-term and thoroughgoing programme of public education in
sustainable tourism development.

All of this is underpinned by one theme that is insistent (even if
sometimes implied) throughout the study: tourism development in
North Cyprus is highly political. There is, of course, no surprise here.
In many respects North Cyprus shares with other Mediterranean
island destinations and SIDS more widely the idea that tourism
development is a factor of considerable political importance. All
political parties in North Cyprus are (necessarily) linked to the
politics of tourism development and that support groups are
‘rewarded’ with planning permissions, rezoning, and other freedoms
to develop tourism without a careful eye on long-term sustainability.

The political nature of tourism planning clearly emerges in the
emphasis placed in recent Master Plans to ’special interest’ tourism –
as opposed to ’mass’ tourism. The issue has several interlocking
dimensions to it and derives in part from the relationship between
North Cyprus and South Cyprus. Since 1974 there has been gradual
development in North Cyprus – including tourism development.
South Cyprus, by contrast, has experienced wave upon wave of
development throughout the 1970s, 80s, 90s and into the 21st
century such that practically the entire coastline has become one
continuous line of development – a ribbon of concrete one might say.

Faced with the mass tourism of South Cyprus, tourism special-
ists (including those who contributed to the Tourism Master Plan)
and tourism authorities in North Cyprus are strongly disposed to
adopt plans for ’special interest’ tourism. Such tourism would be
accommodated within relatively low intensity, environmentally
sensitive urban and rural landscapes. It would be distinguished
sharply in tourist minds with the type of tourism in South Cyprus.
This would give North Cyprus a market advantage in the sense that
competition between the two parts of the island would not be
based on price alone. But it is hardly surprising that this issue
polarises elements of the private sector (especially hoteliers, travel

agents and tour operators) and the planners who are necessarily an
arm of the political establishment. Moreover, it is increasingly
difficult for the planners to adopt a non-partisan approach to
tourism. The nature of tourism development in a microstate such as
North Cyprus is that it engenders political conflict and debate
between different interest groups, one of these being the state
itself. Sustainable tourism development is an approach that is
considerably easier to describe in the coolness of academic debate
than in the heat of the day-to-day demands of the political
economy of a small-island state.

7. Conclusions

This paper has demonstrated how political obstacles (including
ego-driven politics) can inhibit both the formulation and imple-
mentation of sustainable tourism development in SIDS. There are
a number of overarching conclusions to be drawn from the case of
TRNC that have wider implications for planning and implementa-
tion of tourism planning and implementation in similar destina-
tions. First, much of the literature on sustainable tourism and
sustainable tourism planning suffers from being too removed from
the real world of local concerns – especially those of ordinary
citizens who are not part of a political elite or with the oftentimes
middle class agenda expressed through NGO activity. The research
findings and their discussions provide additional insights into the
importance of how political obstacles can inhibit and shape tourism
development in SIDs. Second, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2, the
whole notion of sustainable tourism (with all the economic and
financial implications) is a political football involving groups with
divergent economic interests – and state authorities that are
associated, however discretely, with particular political interests.
Third (linked very strongly to the first), the use in the tourism
planning literature of the term ‘community’ is often misleading and
naı̈ve. This is not the only work that has looked at tourism planning
processes and concluded that the term community is a weak one.
But, the often-smooth connection made in the literature between
something described as ’community involvement’ and sustainable
tourism is too simple. As mentioned earlier, peasant farmers and
villagers in the Alagadi special protected area were ill disposed to
ideas of sustainable tourism – largely because protective status
made it impossible for people to build and develop property and, by
so doing, to make money. The view, sometimes implied in the
literature, is that issues of sustainability revolve around conflicts of
interest between rich investors and developers wanting to get
richer – and poor locals wishing to develop agriculture and alter-
native styles of development – is shown to be somewhat simplistic.
Fourth, planners cannot really do without a thoroughgoing study
of, and involvement with, the social, economic and political context
in which planning is carried out. In ways outlined earlier in the
article planners need to engage with a wide spectrum of fields.
These include the social and educational as well as the political.
Planning for sustainable tourism is not merely a technical matter.
Planners, policy makers and academics first need to understand
past and current issues and developments, power structure and
culture in the governance of a destination in order to develop and
implement plans and policies successfully. By doing this, they may
be able to find ways and means to change and manipulate the
power structure, culture and key actors so that sustainable tourism
development and implementation can be viable.

The focus of this article has been on the practices and principles
of sustainable tourism development in North Cyprus although it is
axiomatic that the study contains general lessons on sustainable
tourism development in other SIDS with MIRAB economies. But
the specific focus of the paper is with the relationship between the
concepts and ideas of sustainable tourism development and the

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356 355

ways in which these are put into practice in North Cyprus – so
involving a political dimension. But much of the literature has been
found to be prescriptive theories about tourism development suffer
from a tendency to be removed from the day-to-day realities and
contexts in which planning and policy are made and implemented
on the ground. The ‘intervention of politics’ and the ‘politicisation
of the public sector’ at all levels were the main reasons given by
many informants for unresolved issues – the reason why many
policy and planning practices could not be implemented in North
Cyprus. For the majority of informants, elected politicians (who are
fundamentally concerned with remaining in power) are interested
in capturing favoured status in the distribution of resources in
society. In order to do so they consciously seek to provide benefits
to a range of interests they believe will help them retain office. They
systematically favour certain interests over others – and they
maximise their returns from the allocation of public expenditure,
goods and services as a way of attracting and rewarding supporters.
In short, elected politicians (as well as appointed officials) seek to
use public resources to stay in power, where the resources of the
state become an instrument for survival.

Evidence presented above clearly suggests that people have
built up views/attitudes in which tourism investments and envi-
ronmental conservation are contrary to each other. They do not
have a clear understanding that planning, environmental conser-
vation, economic growth, and social development can concurrently
be achieved. So, what is the response to the evidence from the
findings? Three things are suggested. The first is that tourism
development needs demonstrably, and at every stage of the
process, to bring benefits not only to the investors but the widest
possible range of actors whose lives are touched by it. The second is
the need to encourage and promote a lively, critical, powerful and
independent set of civil institutions (some of them dedicated to
planning and conservation issues) whose function it is to provide
a voice for those concerned with conservation. The third is that
there should be a thorough programme of public awareness – at all
levels from formal primary education through to tertiary education
and beyond – on the benefits of sustainable tourism planning. Each
of the above suggested strategies is equally important. If one of
them does not exist, the implementation of sustainable tourism
development in SIDs may not be possible. It can be argued that this
case study reveals a number of features that does not only lend
empirical support but also provides additional insights into the
body of work (Hall, 1994, 2000; Hall & Jenkins, 1995) that highlights
the inter-connectedness of politics and tourism. It became apparent
that the development and implementation of sustainable tourism
requires new ways of thinking; an approach which incorporates
political processes, ideologies and cultures underpinning and
central to tourism planning and development. Understanding the
political ideologies, cultures and practices helps to determine the
prominence given to tourism in planning, resource allocation,
decision-making and implementation. It is hoped that this study
illuminates both external and internal political challenges which
could be faced by SIDs and highlight the options that other desti-
nations in a similar position may consider as part of their approach
to sustainable tourism development.

Appendix I. Interview Questions

� What is the role of tourism planning in sustainable tourism
development on the island?
� Who is involved in tourism planning? What are their roles?
� How do they develop plans to support sustainable tourism

policies?
� Who and which aspects promote the development of plans?
� Who and which aspects present obstacles?

� How were the obstacles in planning overcome?
� What are the barriers in front of the implementation of

sustainable tourism policies/plans once they are developed?
� What are the implications of politics and power struggle

among different stakeholder groups for tourism planning and
development?

References

Alipour, H., & Kilic, H. (2005). An institutional appraisal of tourism development
and planning: the case of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). Tourism
Management, 26(1), 79–94.

Altinay, L. (2000). Possible impacts of a federal solution to the Cyprus problem on
the tourism industry of North Cyprus. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 19, 295–309.

Altinay, L., Altinay, M., & Bicak, H. A. (2002). Political scenarios: the future of the
North Cyprus tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 14, 176–182.

Altinay, L., & Bowen, D. (2006). Politics and tourism interface: the case of Cyprus.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 939–956.

Altinay, L., Var, T., Hines, S., & Hussain, K. (2007). Barriers to sustainable tourism
development in Jamaica. Tourism Analysis, 12(3), 1–13.

Andronikou, A. (1979). Tourism in Cyprus. In de Kadt. (Ed.), Tourism: Passport to
development ? (pp. 237–263). New York: Oxford University Press.

Andronikou, A. (1987). Development of tourism in Cyprus: Harmonization of tourism
with the environment. Nicosia: Cosmos.

Baud-Bovy, M. (1982). New concepts in planning for tourism and recreation.
Tourism Management, 3, 308–313.

Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future [‘The Brundtland report’]. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Burns, P. (1999). Paradoxes in planning: tourism elitism or brutalism? Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(2), 329–349.

Burns, P. (2004). Tourism planning: a third way. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1),
24–43.

Burns, P. (2008). Tourism, political discourse and post-colonialism. Tourism and
Hospitality: Panning & Development, 6(1), 61–73.

Burns, P., & Holden, A. (1995). Tourism: A new perspective. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice.

Burns, P., & Novelli, M. (2008). Tourism development: Growth, myths and inequalities.
Wallingford: CAB.

Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainable indicators for managing community
tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274–1289.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

EIU (Economic Intelligence Unit). (1995). Country profile: Cyprus and Malta. London:
The Economic Intelligence Unit.

EIU (Economic Intelligence Unit). (2007, March). The political scene: Greek Cypriots
under pressure over north Cyprus. Country Report Cyprus.

EPP&SCR (Environment, Physical Planning and Settlement Commission Report).
(1999). Çevre, Fizik Planlama ve _Iskan Özel _Ihtisas Raporu: Dördüncü Beş Yıllık
Kalkınma Çalışmaları (2000–2004). [Environment, physical planning and special
settlement commission report: Fourth year development plan (2000–2004)].
Nicosia: The Department of Town Planning.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Getz, D.. (1987). Tourism planning and research: traditions, models and futures. In

Proceedings of the Australian travel Workshop, pp. 4077–448, Bunbury,
Western Australia: Australian Travel Workshop.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration.
Cambridge: Polity.

Gossling, S. (Ed.). (2003). Tourism and development in Tropical Islands. Political
ecology perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gunn, C. (1977). Industry pragmatism vs tourism planning. Leisure Sciences, 1(1),
85–94.

Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. London: Belhaven
Press.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow:
Pearson Education Ltd.

Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (1995). Tourism and public policy. London: Routledge.
Hemmington, N. (1999). Sampling. In B. Brotherton (Ed.), The handbook of

contemporary hospitality management research. New York, NY: Wiley.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning. New York: Wiley.
Ioannides, D. (1992). Tourism development agents: the Cypriot resort cycle. Annals

of Tourism Research, 19(4), 711–731.
Ioannides, D., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Sonmez, S. (2001). Mediterranean Islands and

sustainable tourism development: Practices, management and policies. London/
New York: Continuum.

de Kadt, E. (Ed.). (1979a). Tourism: Passport to development? New York: OUP.
de Kadt, E. (1979b). Social planning for tourism in the development countries.

Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 36–48.
Liu, A., & Wall, G. (2006). Planning tourism employment: a developing country

perspective. Tourism Management, 27, 159–170.

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356356

Lockhart, D. (1994). Tourism in Northern Cyprus: patterns, policies and prospects.
Tourism Management, 15(5), 370–400.

Lockhart, D. (1997). Tourism to Malta and Cyprus, Island tourism: trends and
prospects. In D. G. Lockhart, & Drakakis-Smith. (Eds.), Island tourism: Trends and
prospects (pp. 152–178). London: Routledge.

Lockhart, D., Drakakis-Smith, D., & Schembri, J. (1993). The development process in
small Island states. London: Routlege.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
Milne, S. (1992). Tourism and development in South Pacific island microstates.

Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 191–212.
Ministry of Economics and Tourism. (2007). Statistical Yearbook of tourism 2005.

Tourism Planning Office, TRNC.
Ministry of Economics and Tourism. (2008). Statistical Yearbook of tourism 2007.

Tourism Planning Office, TRNC.
Ministry of Economics and Tourism. (2009). Statistical yearbook of tourism 2008.

Tourism Planning Office, TRNC.
NCSR. (2000). Money laundering and financial crimes. International Narcotics control

strategy report. Washington, DC: US Department of State.
Okumus, F., Altinay, M., & Arasli, H. (2005). The impact of Turkey’s economic crisis

of February 2001 on the tourism industry in Northern Cyprus. Tourism
Management, 26(1), 95–104.

Okumus, F., Altinay, L., & Roper, A. (2007). Gaining access into organizations for
qualitative research. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 4–26.

Okumus, F., & Karamustafa, K. (2005). Impact of an economic crisis: evidence from
Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 942–961.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business studies
(3rd ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Scottish Enterprise. (2003). Snapshots from the Future. A look at current trends that are
shaping the future of tourism. Report by the Henley Centre for Scottish Enterprise.

Shamsul-Haque, M. (2007). Theory and practice of public administration in
Southeast Asia: traditions, directions, and impacts. International Journal of
Public Administration, 30, 1297–1326.

SPO (STATE PLANNING ORGANISATION). (1996). Third year development plan
(1993–1997) and 1996 year transition programme. The TRNC. Nicosia: The
Government Printing Office.

SPO (STATE PLANNING ORGANISATION). (2007). Third year development plan
(2003–2006). The TRNC. Nicosia: The Government Printing Office.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Stephen, M. (1997). The Cyprus question. London: The British-Northern Cyprus
Parliamentary Group (of Members of both Houses of the United Kingdom
Parliament of All Political Parties).

Storrs, R. (1930). A Chronology of Cyprus. Nicosia: Government Printing Office.
Strange, S. (1994). States and markets (2nd ed.). London: Pinter.
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development

process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633.
Tosun, C., & Jenkins, C. L. (1998). The evolution of tourism planning in third-world

countries: a critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 101–114.
Tosun, C., & Timothy, J. D. (2001). Shortcomings to planning approaches to tourism

development in developing countries: the case of Turkey. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 352–359.

TRNC SM&DPM (TRNC STATE MINISTRY and Deputy PRIME MINISTRY). (1998).
Boğaziçi Üniversitesitesi’nin KKTC Devlet ve Başbakan Yardımcılığı için Hazırladığı

KKTC Turizm Gelişim Planı (Turizm master Planı)(TRNC tourism development plan
(Tourism master plan) report to SM&DPM prepared by Boğaziçi University).
Lefkoşa: Tourism Ministry.

TRNC SM&DPM. (1999). KKTC Turizm Gelişim Planı. [The TRNC tourism development
plan]. Nicosia: The State Ministry, Tourism Ministry and Deputy Prime Ministry.

TRNC SM&DPM. (2000). 2000 Yılı Turizm Stratejik Planlaması. [The Year 2000 tourism
strategic planning]. Nicosia: The State Ministry, Tourism Ministry and Deputy
Prime Ministry.

UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation). (1980). Physical planning and area devel-
opment for tourism in the six WTO region. Madrid: WTO.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Watters, R. (1984). The village mode of production in MIRAB economies. Pacific
Viewpoint, 25(2), 218–223.

Witt, F. S. (1991). Tourism in Cyprus: balancing the benefits and costs. Tourism
Management, 3(2), 37–46.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Politics and sustainable tourism development – Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus

Introduction

Literature review

Tourism development in North Cyprus

Methods

Findings

Core influencers (the political power base)

Government officials

Private sector

Peripheral influencers

Publicly owned business

Non-governmental organizations

Discussion

Conclusions

Interview Questions

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Week 8 Discussion- Sustainability and Politics ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now