Institutions are collective human-
designed action, such as government strategies, plans, policies or laws, business or industry norms, social
norms, cultural beliefs or the general patterns of consumer behaviour (Mantzavinos, North and Shariq, 200
). As the transformation process is
intertwined with human institutions, a detailed model of the process must consider both structure and
institutions; yet many structural models omit institutional factors and this has been considered their greatest
weakness (Williamson, 2000). This paradox, however, does not occur consistently and often
development is deliberately cultivated by the community (Gonen, 1981). These studies have often been undertaken for two primary
reasons: to overcome barriers to successful and sustainable tourism development (commonly termed
paradoxes) and to provide insight into the level of impact tourism has on the community (Diedrich and Garcia-
Baudes, 2009). For
example, Saarinen (200
) argued that a destination’s image, knowledge, meanings and natural and cultural
features over slowly stereotype and modify over the course of the transformation process, resulting in a loss of
differentiation between destinations.
When considering tourism planning, a key concern in the tourism transformation literature is the role and
responsibility of government (Haung, 200
; Briedenhann and Butts, 200
; Pavlovich, 2003; McLennan, 2005).
Institutions and perceptions are an important element of transformation (Mwangi, 2006), so it is appropriate
that the dynamics of tourism transformation have been frequently investigated using resident perceptions of
the industry (Allen, Long, Perdue and Kieselback, 1988; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf and Vogt, 2005; Andriotis,
2005; Ap, 1992; Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Besculides, Lee and McCormick, 2002; Harrill, 200
; Horn and Simmons, 2002;
Johnson, et al. It is often postulated that
local or regional governments should self-direct and play a greater role in tourism development because
structural changes and impacts have the greatest effect and can be more readily observed at the local level
(Adams, Dixon and Rimmer, 2001; Milne and Ateljevic, 2001; Pavlovich, 2003; Haung, 200
) and, at this level,
institutional modifications and planned intervention are more likely to be effective (Roberts, 200
; McLennan,
2005; Sebastian and Rajagoplan, 2009). This implies that destinations further progressed in tourism
development would be considered less ‘unique’ than a region in which tourism has just commenced. It has been argued that more rapid and intense tourism development may have a less beneficial effect on societies than smaller scale development (de Kadt, 1979; Pierce, 1989; Ratz, 2000).