Nombre de la variedad de uva de vinificación

The conceptual framework of the current study has discussed the ST as being one of the theories upon which the study is based, incorporating the views from studies that advocate the development of tourism offerings from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Accordingly, the current section presents a theoretical overview of the existing literature that argues the importance of incorporating stakeholder views on, and attitudes towards, the tourism offerings made. Goeldner and Ritchie (2009), Poudel et al. (2016), as well as Kokemuller (2017) argue that the stakeholders of tourism offerings at a destination are the drivers of the overall tourism transactions involved.

Muchapondwa and Pimhidzai (2008), as well as George, Henthorne and Williams (2016), advance that the stakeholders are those who are, probably, the most directly/indirectly affected by the changing trends (which are brought about by both the external and internal variables).

The decisions that they make thereafter greatly affect the overall tourism offerings of a destination (Zengeni & Zengeni, 2012). The school of thought offers the perspective that stakeholder views map the way in which a destination functions (Poudel et al., 2016).

According to Salsberg and Macridis (2016), stakeholder views help to describe the actual way in which a developmental process should go. The above is so because the developments undertaken reflect the views of everyone concerned (Morakabati et al., 2017; Poudel et al., 2016; Salsberg & Macridis, 2016).

Some studies (Anja & Bronik, 2009; Chen & Turner, 2012; Khazaei et al., 2015; Nugraha, Hamin & Elliot, 2016) argue that the stakeholders’ views should be incorporated in tourism development mainly because those views are the ones that help destination managers to understand how their tourism offerings are perceived by both primary/internal and external/secondary stakeholders, as was identified in Chapter Two of the current study. The above should, accordingly, result in the destination managers concerned formulating policies and strategies that reflect the views of all stakeholders concerned (Morupisi & Mokgalo, 2017).

In the context of Zimbabwe, incorporating the stakeholders’ views on the current state of tourism in the country might be seen as a panacea for resolving the tourism development challenges that the country currently faces (Mhizha, Nyaruwata, Munyanyiwa & Mandebvu, 2015). After the country’s economic status faced a downswing, and the amount of tourism dropped (Mlambo, 2014), the multiplicity of challenges prevailing made it close to impossible to revive the industry (Zengeni & Zengeni, 2012). Some of the challenges concerned were argued to be: the change in tourists’ tastes in relation to the tourism offerings at the time (Mutana & Zinyemba, 2013); the new tourism offerings that required developing (Mzembi, 2014); the fact of new stakeholders coming into play, while some left the arena (Chingarande, 2014); the growing irrelevancy of some tourism policies and strategies, such as Zimbabwe having had to change its tourism brand name (Chibaya, 2013); and the fact that other competing destinations had poached and marketed the country’s tourism offerings for their own benefit.

An example of the latter is South Africa, Botswana and Zambia having begun to promote Zimbabwe’s Victoria Falls as part of their own package tours (Mutana & Zinyemba, 2013).

The above-mentioned challenges entailed the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to the revamping of Zimbabwe’s tourism sector, requiring input from the different heterogeneous stakeholder groups concerned (Katsamudanga, 2015; Sibanda & Ndlovu, 2017). The above-mentioned views can be considered important in terms of the effort made to redress the existing gap, and to redevelop the tourism offerings involved. More so, Runyowa (2017) identifies that there is, as yet, no known study in the public domain that has sought to determine all the affected stakeholders’ views of tourism offerings in the Zimbabwean context. Hence, the current study sought to redress the prevailing research gap.

Kimbu and Ngoasong (2013) argue, however, that the case of Zimbabwe reflects that of Africa and of most other developing countries in the world. In their exploration of the nature of participation by the destination stakeholders, in terms of the formulating and implementing of the tourism policy in Cameroon, Kimbu and Ngoasong (2013) conclude that, while there is increasing recognition of the positive impacts of tourism on economic development in Africa, the existing relationships between the different stakeholders concerned are plagued by challenges that constrain its development. In the above case, therefore, such scholars as Bramwell and Lane (2013), Trawoger (2014), Sharpley and Telfer (2015), Poudel et al. (2016), and Burger and Niles (2017), among many others, advise that, if destinations want to see success in the development of tourism, tourism development should flow from the collaboration and complementarities of all the stakeholders’ views involved, despite the existing disparity in terms of interest (of both the non-profit and the profit-making stakeholders).

According to Inskeep’s (1991) tourism planning process model, the views and interests of stakeholders should be represented throughout the planning process. Doing so, according to Trawoger (2014), as well as Gomulya and Mishina (2017), should help, in terms of any tourism development project, to address the concerns and requirements of all involved stakeholders.

Morupisi and Mokgalo (2017) advance that the most critical aspect in the development of tourism offerings is to cater equally for the requirements of the multiple stakeholders involved.

Such requirements can clearly only be catered for in the event that all the views are incorporated, and seen as being of equal value, in terms of developing the tourism offerings made available. Trawoger (2014) expresses a belief that catering for the stakeholders’ needs in relation to tourism development can pave the way to sustainable development.

To exemplify the above, Wan and Li (2013), in an effort to propose the maximisation of the benefits of tourism stakeholders in Macao, China, examined the sustainability of the destination by means of assessing the stakeholders’ perceptions of the economic, sociocultural and environmental impacts, and the visitor satisfaction and community involvement levels, from 2002 to 2009. The two researchers found that tourism efforts were being planned without consulting the important stakeholders involved, with such challenges as the more negative impacts of tourism, the moderate level of visitor satisfaction, and the low levels of community involvement attained hindering the development of successful sustainable tourism in Macao.

The suggestions given by the Macao stakeholders were that the destination involved should diversify away from the casino industry, speed up the construction of the public transport system, monitor the environmental conditions and crime rates, and develop a master plan for tourism development, integrating the input of all stakeholders. The case of Macao means that developing tourism offerings requires adopting a holistic approach that reflects the multiplicity of values, requirements and expectations constituting every group / all individuals affected (Lo, 2017a,b; Mirimi et al., 2013)

Developing tourism offerings is an ongoing process (Gomulya & Mishina, 2017; Mirimi et al., 2013) that can be, amongst many other factors, triggered by the tourism policy (Carlisle et al., 2013) involved. Such policy is formulated by the public sector, which is undoubtedly the leading stakeholder in the investment (Goeldner & Ritchie, 2009; UNWTO, 2015a). The implementation and monitoring of the different strategies requires the input of a broad crossband of stakeholders (Sharpley & Telfer, 2015). Therefore, as Mirimi et al. (2013b) put it, developing a tourism offering is not an end in itself, but it forms part of a continuously

constructed socio-economic process that accounts for the destination’s characteristics and that is reflective of all views of the individuals and groups involved.

Incorporating stakeholder views in the process of tourism development allows for unanimity in decision-making to ensure that all interests are respected and protected (Lee & Chen, 2017;

Wan & Li, 2013). Furthermore, such incorporation assists in achieving consensus amongst all the affected stakeholders, as well in ensuring the smooth running of the progress in tourism development made at the destination in question (Avraham & Ketter, 2016; Carlisle et al., 2013;

Wilbert, 2017). Poudel et al. (2016) advance the proposition that it also helps stakeholders to address challenges successfully and to press home the issues affecting STD.

Incorporating the stakeholder views and attitudes towards tourism offerings in terms of tourism development is seen as a means of: (1) increasing efficiency (Illankoon et al., 2016); (2) bettering destination performance (Jani & Nguni, 2016); (3) increasing destination performance (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016); (4) enhancing the destinations’ competitiveness (Holden, 2016;

Kim & Yen, 2017; Lee & Chen, 2017); (5) paving the way to economic development (Holden, 2016); and (6) building and enhancing the destination’s reputation (Wadekar et al., 2017).

Above all, successful tourism destinations are those whose tourism policies and strategies are reflective of every stakeholder group’s views and attitudes involved (Kokemuller, 2017).

Inasmuch as the stakeholders are different from one another, as was highlighted in Chapter Two of the current study, their views are considered to be equally important in the endeavour to achieve STD (Poudel et al., 2016). However, it is still important to profile the stakeholders concerned, so as to be able to reach an understanding of how to distinguish and classify their views, as well as to be able to learn where each of them fits in, within the entire tourism development process (Morakabati et al., 2017). In the light of the above, the current study also sought to explore the profiles of tourism stakeholders and their interests, as profiling the stakeholders has been found to be the most successful managerial strategy for understanding them (Aguera, 2013; Oian, Aas, Skar, Anderson & Stensland, 2017; Slaba, 2016). As such, the following subsection discusses the importance of profiling tourism stakeholders in terms of tourism development.