The following section utilises Johnson and Scholes’ (1993) power/interest matrix, discussed in chapter three to classify the interviewed stakeholders in relation to the power they hold and the extent to which they show interest in
175
tourism development. Figure 6.2 below shows the power/interest matrix as described in chapter three with power relating to power in the tourism development process in the WBR. Interest relates to Schusser’s (2012) interpretation of interest, namely that concerning behaviour, that is; action orientation regarding STD. In terms of the power/interest of the interviewees, there are a number of key players (high power and interest), the majority of whom are in the public sector as through their actions they dictate land-use planning which is at the core of destination sustainability (Kytzia, Walz and Wegmann, 2011). LEVEL OF INTEREST Low High Low POWER High
Figure 6.2: Power/interest matrix of interviewees
The chair of the biosphere (CS6) and also the acting CEO of Game Reserve 1 (AC12) are seen as key players, the former due to his influence over biosphere planning guidelines, environmental management frameworks and
Minimal Effort PS5 LC1,2 BS1,2,3,4,5 CS3,5 AC1,4,5,6,7,9,11,13 Keep Informed AC2,3,8,10, CS1,2,4,7,8
Keep Satisfied Key Players
PS1,2,3,4,5 CS6 AC12
176
spatial development plans and the latter because of level of influence over the reserve’s strategic direction. Due to the scale of the reserve, its influence over its neighbours and the ability to affect the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the WBR, the role of CEO is a powerful one in the region. For example, there is a commitment to dropping fences to create larger contiguous areas in which game can roam, thus affecting land-use in the area. Creating these contiguous areas of land is imperative to ensure that ecosystems function in a more natural state. It is only those powerful stakeholders that have the knowledge and ability to achieve this movement towards the creation of more open reserves.
There are a number of stakeholders that also have high levels of interest in the WBR through their actions, but whose power is limited. According to Mendelow’s matrix, these stakeholders need to be kept informed of developments. This group includes members of the WNC (AC2; AC8; AC10; CS1) and also the founder of the WBR who is still active in conservation in the region (CS2). Also included in this category is a committee member of the WBR (CS8) and one accommodation owner who is also developing new solar technology which has implications for sustainable energy use and job creation within the biosphere (AC3).
It is the natural landscape that was one of the fundamental rationales for the creation of the WBR through the members of the WNC. The initial idea was mooted in 1982 by CS2, a long-standing conservationist, but it was not until June 1990 that the constitution was adopted (Waterberg Nature Conservancy, 2012). This period was during the 1980s and were the final years of apartheid, Mandela being released in February 1990 and the country entering a turbulent and potentially perilous period. While they had seemingly altruistic motives for the conservation and promotion of the natural environment in the Waterberg region, it must also be recognised that they were all white land-owners with a vested interest in not just protecting land for conservation issues, but also for economic ones. The WNC members therefore deserve a specific mention as they have a high level of interest in what happens in the Waterberg as they are all landowners. CS2 was the main driving force behind the organisation
177
and past chairs include AC8 and AC2, while CS1 is the current chair. This reinforces the work of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) who examine how stakeholders that have similar belief systems are more likely to form coalitions with distinct ideologies. The discourses and associated power are examined in greater depth in chapter eight, however at this point they need to be recognised as an influential group in the WBR.
Within this case study there are no stakeholders who fall into the category of ‘keep satisfied’ – having high power, but low interest. There are other stakeholders within the WBR who fall into this category, but are not directly related to tourism development. The Land Claims Committee could fall into this classification as they have a considerable influence over how land is distributed within the WBR, but have little involvement in how that land is used.
The final group of stakeholders are those categorised as ‘minimal effort’. These individuals have low levels of power regarding STD and also through their actions low interest. This category includes the land claimants (LC1,2), those who have tourism-related businesses (BS1-5), accommodation providers who are not in the WNC and who either manage properties or who have relatively small pieces of land (AC1,3,5,6,7,9,11,13). There are also those who are in civil society in this group who indirectly have an involvement in tourism, but whose actions and power are limited regarding tourism development (CS3; CS4; CS5).