LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆA UNIVERSITATIS FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Economics and Organization Vol. 13, N o 1, 2016, pp. 87 - 100 STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION IN MONTENEGRIN TOURISM DESTINATIONS – CURRENT STATE AND CONSTRAINTS UDC 338.48(497.1) Ljiljana Pjerotić, Miško Rađenović, Ana Tripković Marković Faculty of Business and Tourism, Budva, Montenegro1 Abstract. For the sustainable development of tourism destinations, there is a need for a coordinated effort between all interest groups (tourism stakeholders from the public, private and civil sectors) through systematically developed and implemented management plans at all levels, especially at the local destination level, where tourism activities take place, tourists interact with service providers and with communities, and where tourism’s positive and negative impacts are most felt. The paper deals with the problem of managing a tourism destination from the perspective of harmonizing stakeholders’ interests. It explores destination management in the Montenegrin tourism destinations, namely the level of stakeholders’ cooperation at the local destination level. An empirical research was carried out on the sample of 19 local tourist organizations in Montenegro. The findings and implications of the research are given in the paper. Based on the stakeholder theory, the research tries to verify that the level of destination management development depends on the level of stakeholder's cooperation. The results revealed that cooperation between the many and varied tourism stakeholders in the Montenegrin tourism destinations is not yet sufficiently developed, as they face a number of issues such as the lack of planning documents, insufficiently developed communication channels and variety of often opposing interests. Nevertheless, there are indications based on the recently conducted research reported in this paper, that there is a strong positive correlation between the level of stakeholder's cooperation and the state of destination tourism planning, marketing activities, monitoring and continuous education. Key words: tourism destination, tourism destination management, stakeholder cooperation. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the problem of managing a tourism destination has attracted the attention of many scientists (Sautter and Leisen, 1999; Buhalis, 2000; Presenza, Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005; Sainaghi, 2006). One thing that is common for their work is pointing Received January 19, 2016 / Accepted April 03, 2016 Corresponding author: Ljiljana Pjerotić Faculty of Business and Tourism, Zgrada „Akademija znanja“, 85310 Budva, Montenegro E-mail: lpjerotic@ t-com.me 88 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ out the complexity of a tourism destination as a management unit that is mostly associated with the relationship between different groups of stakeholders in the destination and because of the need for stakeholders to be encouraged to cooperate instead of compete, as well as to unite resources in order to create a system of integral management, directing and delivering of an offer. The complexity of managing tourism development at a tourism destination is due to the fact that many organizations, such as, for example, food vendors, shops and petrol stations, do not understand their role in the process, they are not recognized as part of the tourism industry, even though they have great benefits from tourism development, and are often not sufficiently interested in participating in planning of tourism development. Apart from that, a highly fragmented structure of products and services in tourism is faced with customers who perceive the whole set of offers as a unique product or experience. Therefore, cooperation between stakeholders is being set as one of the key functions in establishing efficient management of tourism destination development, that is, achieving the desired vision of development. This cooperation is especially necessary for accomplishing the tasks for improving a product, improving infrastructure, human resources and marketing. Another fact can be added to the mentioned, that the very concept of sustainable development is unattainable without cooperation and agreement of stakeholders on a number of issues related to the consideration of long-term tourism destination development. Additionally, management complexity can be confirmed by the fact that alignment of interests between different groups of stakeholders is difficult as these interests can be conflicting, as well as the fact that visions of development often vary. Each stakeholder group has its own attitudes regarding tourism destination development, therefore it is necessary to coordinate interchange of opinions among them and involve them at an early stage of tourism development planning process through various consultative meetings. In the process of coordination among stakeholders, we should bear in mind very different objectives that certain stakeholder groups define in tourism development planning. Some authors (Liu, 2003; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999) point out that the key element for ensuring the sustainable development of tourism is overcoming subordination among stakeholders (tourists, local communities, public and private tourism sector, local, regional and national governance structures), which can be accomplished through coordinating and balancing their interests and establishing strategic development plans that would respect these interests. Complexity of the different stakeholder groups interests and attitudes harmonization process demands the existence of the leader organization that coordinates activities aimed at tourism destination development. Therefore, one of the tasks for the leader organization for tourism destination management is recognizing interests of all stakeholders involved in tourism destination development, and creating a policy that would allow all stakeholders to recognize frameworks for implementing their individual goals. In countries with developed tourism, the attempts to find optimal forms of tourism destination management are made. Public organizations for tourism destination management (as part of the state structures), which have been at the top of the hierarchy in the tourism development controlling process for a long time, are slowly accepting the need to disperse tourism destination management among the various partners, creating a stakeholder network that facilitates the establishment of functional relations between stakeholders, while balancing their interests. This process should take place much more quickly in countries in transition, because in these countries tourism, whose significance was not recognized previously, can represent a driving force of overall development. However, it is questionable to what extent Stakeholder Cooperation in Montenegrin Tourism Destinations – Current State and Constraints 89 stakeholders have experience in networking and constructive partnerships, especially at the institutional level. Therefore, management of stakeholders is one of the important aspects in understanding the process of tourism destination management. 1. STAKEHOLDER THEORY In management literature, the stakeholder theory appears in 1984. Freeman's book “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach” defines a stakeholder as ,,any group or individual who has influence or is influenced by the organization's objectives” (Byrd, 2007, p. 7). Byrd notes that in 1995. Donaldson and Preston redefined this stating that “in order for a group or individual to be a stakeholder, it should have a legitimate interest in the organization” (Byrd, 2007, p. 7). The emergence of the stakeholder theory in tourism literature is strongly associated with the new concept of sustainable tourism. Many authors state that achieving sustainability requires involvement of different groups of stakeholders that should firstly be identified, as it is essential to determine who should be involved in tourism development and what their roles in it are (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Since stakeholder groups are very different, in the stakeholder management theory, diverse and different types appear. The basic classification is into primary and secondary, depending on the extent to which and how they affect the business of an organization or how much benefit or cost they create. Primary stakeholders are groups ,,without whose participation organizations cannot survive”, and secondary ,,those who are not involved in the transaction and are not essential to its existence, but they are influenced by it” (Sheehan and Ritchie 2005, p. 714). Numerous authors have dealt with reviewing the stakeholder theory, that is, the need for cooperation between various groups who “create” and develop tourism at a tourism destination. Perspectives of considerations were different, and some of the most often mentioned issues, so far, are:  problems of planning at a tourism destination and stakeholder involvement (Yuksel, Bramwell and Yuksel, 1999; Sautter and Leisen, 1999; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999)  the question of desirability of joint marketing (Robson and Robson, 1996) or the issue of joint activities in the field of promotion (Blain, Levy and Ritchie, 2005)  consideration of the stakeholder theory in achieving sustainable development of a tourism destination (Timur and Getz, 2002). The most challenging part of stakeholder integration in tourism destination management is their involvement in planning, and afterwards in plans’ implementation. Sautter and Leisen (1999, p. 315) support tourism planners use of Stakeholder theory and suggest that the first step in implementing stakeholder management is to have a full appreciation of all the persons or groups who have interests in the planning process, delivery and outcomes of the tourism service. Including Sautter and Leisen (1999), there is now an increasing number of researches and professionals that are advocating the inclusion of stakeholders in the planning process. When it comes to the participation of stakeholders in tourism planning, Bramwell and Sharman (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999, p. 411) have identified three key issues: the representativeness of representatives of all relevant stakeholder groups (the extent to which the range of stakeholders participating is representative of all relevant stakeholders), the intensity of cooperation and the degree of consensus reached between them. 90 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ The importance of planning, and especially the definition of a common vision of tourism, has been recognized by scientists and experts. However, although scientists emphasized the importance of creating a common vision for tourism planning (Ritchie and Crouch, 2000), tools and conditions that are needed to improve the sharing of visions between stakeholders have not yet been identified. Because of that, many destinations, because of the lack of a sense of "corporate identity", have difficulty in realizing common goals and visions. 2. STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION The need for creating a network of stakeholders in order to accomplish successful tourism development is not of the newest date and it was pointed out in detail by Murphy in 1985 and 1988 (Murphy, 1985; Murphy, 1988. Quoted in: Potts and Harrill, 1998). As we have already mentioned, when we talk about organizations within industry, the stakeholder approach was represented by Freeman and many other authors. The benefits of creating a network of stakeholders are numerous, and here we would like to point out some of them that are of special importance for tourism:  formulating common policy of tourism development and strategy for achieving set goals of development  creating plan documents as instruments for strategy implementation, especially planning the creation of common integrated tourism product  common promotion of a tourism product  knowledge interchange, esspecialy in the area of market research  organizing seminars for training employees in the tourism sector  overcoming issues that are the results of competition and creating a relationship of complementarity. Practical realization of cooperation between stakeholders often displays many problems, which are the result of the differences in understanding of their relative power in the decision making process. This is particulary present in countries that are experiencing transition, where the main role in creating the policy of social and economical development are played by political structures, which represent the point of view that their „elite“ position possesses full justification in the fact that they are elected representatives of people, that by being elecetd they gained legitimacy to make key decisions on directions of development. This standpoint of political structures is not distinctive only for countries in transition, although it is more obvious, but is still present in many developed countries and is displayed through the illusion of collaborative planning. This means that many decisions in the public sector are previously prepared, consultations with other stakeholders are conducted only formally, without real readiness for cooperation in the already conceptualized documents (Hall, 1994). The process of cooperation between stakeholders is not simple and often faces many obstacles, among which are the following:  formally accepting the policy of openness in the process of collaboration certain stakeholders do not want to honestly share information with other stakeholders, believing that it could jeopardize their position, especially if they used to have elite position for a longer period of time in creating directions of tourism destination development, Stakeholder Cooperation in Montenegrin Tourism Destinations – Current State and Constraints 91  in meetings that are organized during the process of collaboration, certain lobby groups could be represented in a great number and, using their criticism, they could disable other stakeholders, whose participation is also legitimus, to explain their suggestions,  key stakeholders sometimes believe that representatives of the public are not competent enough, or disinterested, to decide on tourism development directions, therefore they do not support their participation in the collaboration process,  a disbalance in the decision making process is often stimulated by a strong hierarchical structure of stakeholders in a destination, which is a result of dividing a level of their influence on tourism development and attitudes of elite stakeholders that were determined in advance, with little readiness to change these attitudes,  the lack of sufficient knowledge on the importance of conservation of natural and cultural resources for sustainable development of tourism by certain stakeholders and their primary interest in economic benefits of tourism, can lead to decisions that will have a negative impact on the natural and cultural environment,  engaging an expert team outside of the destination that is not familiar enough with the specifics of the tourism destination, especially the attitudes of local residents, and forms the first version of the document on directions of development of the tourism destination without sufficient consultation, can affect other stakeholders not to take part in the creation of the final version of the document. The process of cooperation characterized by inclusiveness, transparency, sharing of knowledge, willingness to build consensus, continuous process of monitoring the success of implementation of selected strategies and performing corrections has a good chance of leading to faster development of tourism at the destination level, with benefits for many stakeholders. Doing so, things that must be taken into account are the interests of local community, and the need to preserve natural and cultural assets. The success of managing the development of a tourism destination today is primarily measured through the harmonious development of a destination in the economic, social, cultural and other respects, the awareness of local population about the importance of tourism, all of which, while respecting traditional values of tourism destinations and local communities. This can be achieved only by adjusting activities and partnership with all subjects in the tourism destination, especially key stakeholders from all three sectors: public, private and civil society. The public sector represents the public interest and also undertakes activities that benefit all stakeholders. It does not create profit, but spends the funds raised through taxes and fees in order to implement policies and projects that benefit the entire society. The public sector affects the development of tourism in a destination in different ways, and thus it affects development sustainability as, for example, through legislation and regulation, fiscal policy, spatial planning, building control, environmental infrastructure, active involvement in the development of tourism, prescribed standards, control over the number of tourists by highlighting specific areas of special importance, etc. Also, the public sector function within the tourism industry is to increase tourist satisfaction, enhance economic and business success, protect existing assets and preserve community integration. The private sector includes all providers of products and services in a destination. Middleton (Middleton and Hawkins, 1998, p. 107) points out that some participants in tourism destinations do not recognize that they are part of a "team", but also that the private sector has 92 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ an advantage over the public sector when it comes to sustainable development, because it has practical, concrete commercial knowledge, it is familiar with the customers and the market as well as with the inherent management skills. However, the private sector is often criticized because it is more focused on short-term creation of profit rather than on the long-term sustainability, it exploits environment rather than preserve it, it is often influenced by major international companies (tour operators, hotel chains) that are also not interested in the destination but more in creating profits, for not doing enough to raise awareness of tourists of the need for sustainability, that is, not doing enough to educate tourists about the need to preserve a destination and finally that they use "sustainable tourism" to get publicity or a possible reduction of certain costs. When it comes to managing sustainable development of tourism, the role of local people should be particularly emphasized. Since the eighties, the comprehension of the fact that local community is not just a passive recipient of tourists has been growing. According to Jamal and Getz (1995), local population, the public and private sector share the resources of the local community. Therefore, the community should be involved in tourism destination management, particularly in planning, because development can not be imposed "from outside", but should be accepted by those who live and work in the area. For the successful implementation of the plan documents, it is necessary to have the support of the local community and it is therefore necessary to have local involvement of the key destination stakeholders (Tosun, 2000, p. 616). This process can face many problems: the difficulties of population understanding the complex process of planning and decision making, the problem of ensuring balanced representation of different viewpoints, the lack of interest in some segments of the population, increasing costs, extending the process of adopting the strategy, etc. Residents of a tourism destinations are the key participant in tourism development, because of their attitude towards tourists and attitudes towards tourism they significantly affect the satisfaction of tourists by interacting with them. 3. RESEARCH OF STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION AT TOURISM DESTINATIONS IN MONTENEGRO Most of the discussions on the subject of tourism destination management are mostly theoretical or they come down to the experience of certain destinations, therefore it is difficult to generalize the results. There is very little empirical evidence that would support the claim that the effective cooperation leads to better planning and implementation of tourism development. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to examine, based on the results of the research, the actual level of stakeholder cooperation in Montenegro tourism destinations, as well as the effects of this cooperation on the management process of tourism development. 3.1. Defining the research sample In order to test the hypothesis that the stakeholder cooperation is a basic prerequisite for efficient management of tourism destination, a survey was conducted on the state of governance and stakeholders' cooperation in tourism destinations in Montenegro. The research on the state of development of tourism destinations is carried out on a population consisting of directors of tourist organizations in Montenegro, as it was considered that the tourist organizations have the most comprehensive insight into the management of tourism destinations and the degree of cooperation of all stakeholders of tourism Stakeholder Cooperation in Montenegrin Tourism Destinations – Current State and Constraints 93 development at the destination level, as well as insight into factors that limit this cooperation. The system of tourist organizations in Montenegro consists of a total of 19 tourist organizations. We collected a total of 17 questionnaires, representing a rate of return of 89.5%, which makes the sample representative. The research on the perceived stakeholder cooperation was conducted on a set of 19 destinations where tourist organizations are present. Respondents in destinations were representatives/directors of tourist organizations, marketing directors at a company/hotel, the mayor or a secretary of the municipality, a director of a travel agency and local residents. 130 questionnaires in total were sent out and 110 questionnaires were collected, representing a return rate of 84.62%. The research, therefore, covered the chosen representatives of the following groups of stakeholders: tourist organizations and municipalities as representatives for the public sector, hoteliers and travel agencies as well as the private sector representatives, and local residents. 3.2. Research methods The research instrument was a structured questionnaire used to ask respondents to indicate on a numerical scale of five values to grade the state of stakeholder cooperation in tourism destination according to management instruments. Destination management instruments were tourism development planning (development plan, marketing plan and promotion plan), promotion and distribution, measuring the performance (tourist traffic, guest satisfaction, competitive analysis, benchmarking analysis), education for the purpose of destination management. The quality of cooperation was evaluated according to the areas of cooperation, which include cooperation in the process of planning, product development, promotion and distribution, performance monitoring, as well as cooperation in the adoption of new knowledge through education. The final goal of the research was to determine the relationship between stakeholder cooperation and application of instruments for managing the development of destinations. To test the correlation of cooperation between destination stakeholders (independent variable) and management tools (dependent variable), the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used. The research results were processed by the program for data analysis SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The statistical method used for data processing was correlation analysis. The objective correlation analysis was to determine the strength and direction of the correlation between stakeholder cooperation and tourism destination management instruments. In order to test differences in stakeholders' cooperation between different regions, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used, which is a non-parametric analysis of mean rank. We tested the normality of distribution of variables using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which showed that the variables have a normal distribution (p value less than 0.05). Significance level (p) for all statistical tests was 0.05, so the value of p is less than 0.05 which was considered to be an indicator of statistical significance. 3.3. Research results Stakeholder cooperation is considered to be a basic prerequisite for efficient management of a tourism destination and its sustainable development (Carey and Gountas, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1999; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Buhalis, 2000; Dredge, 2006). Research has shown that it is insufficiently developed in tourism destinations 94 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ in Montenegro. In fact, respondents generally rated the state of stakeholder cooperation in tourism destination development with the average grade of 3.06. Furthermore, the quality of cooperation was evaluated by fields of cooperation, that is, management instruments on a numerical five values scale (1  bad, 5  excellent). Table 1 Mean grade values of stakeholder cooperation state N Arithmetic mean Standard deviation Overall condition of cooperation 110 3.06 0.937 Field of cooperation Planning 110 2.88 1.182 Product development 110 3.12 0.963 Promotion and distribution 110 3.59 1.088 Measuring the performance 110 3.18 0.856 Education 110 3.41 1.148 Source: Authors' calculation The mean value of all the grades is in the range of 2.88 to 3.59. Cooperation in the field of promotion and distribution is the best rated (mean grade 3.59), while the worst- rated field of cooperation is planning (mean grade 2.88). Relatively low rating of cooperation in the field of performance monitoring (Table 1) indicates that there is little exchange of information between participants in the destination management that would allow better monitoring the effects of activities undertaken at a tourism destination. Table 2 Constraints rank for better stakeholder cooperation Constraints Number of respondents Median Upper quartile Mod Lack of planning documents 110 3 4 1 Under-developed channels of communication 110 3 4 2 Various interests 110 2 3 3 Absence of formal forms of cooperation 110 4 5 4 Absence of a „leader“ / coordinator of activities 110 3 5 5 Source: Authors’ calculation The cooperation between tourism stakeholders can be improved by understanding the factors/constraints that are crucial for a successful stakeholder cooperation. Therefore, the main limitations for better cooperation were pointed out by relevance (Table 2). Respondents ranked the listed constraints from 1 to 5 (1  most important, 5  least important). The results show that respondents see causes of poor cooperation primarily in the lack of planning documents for tourism development (mod 1), under-developed channels of communication (mod 2), then, various interests (mod 3), the absence of formal forms of cooperation (mod 4) and finally, as the least important, the absence of a „leader“ or coordinator of activities (mod 5). Stakeholder Cooperation in Montenegrin Tourism Destinations – Current State and Constraints 95 Fig. 1 Mean grades of stakeholder cooperation state by regions Analyzed by region (Figure 1), the state of cooperation is similary rated as on the general level, with a somewhat better rate in the Coastal region (mean grade 3.33) and slightly lower in the North region (average grade 2.71). Observed through certain fields of cooperation, in the area of acquiring new knowledge (Figure 1), it was the best rated in Central region (average grade 3.75), while in the Coastal region cooperation in all other areas was rated slightly better than in the other regions (Figure 1). When it comes to major constraints for better cooperation, the situation on the regional level is similar to the general picture. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to study the statistical significance of the differences in cooperation between tourism destination stakeholders by regions. Table 3 Difference in stakeholders' cooperation in tourism destinations by region (Kruskal-Wallis test) Cooperation K-W p Overall cooperation 2.009 0.366 Fields of cooperation Planning 1.197 0.550 Product development 4.970 0.083 Promotion and distribution 1.334 0.513 Measuring the performance 6.578 0.037 Education 1.125 0.570 Source: Authors' calculation The Kruskal-Wallis test (Table 3) showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the regions in stakeholders' cooperation when the state of cooperation between tourism destination stakeholders is generally ranked (p = 0.366). Also, focusing on the fields of cooperation, that is, planning (p = 0.550), product development (p = 0.083), promotion (p = 0.513) and adoption of new knowledge (p = 0.570), there was no statistically significant difference between the regions. Only when it comes to cooperation in the field of measuring the performance, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically 96 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ significant difference between regions (p = 0.037). The greatest difference between regions was noted in this area. In order to determine whether the level of development of tourism destination management instruments depends on the level of cooperation between stakeholders, with the data obtained by the research, further statistical analysis was conducted. Using the Spearman coefficient of correlation (rs), it was tested whether there is a statistically significant correlation between the rated stakeholder cooperation and evaluated development of tourism destination management instruments. Table 4 Correlation between stakeholder cooperation and management instruments Management instruments rs p Planning 0.534 0.027 Promotion 0.555 0.021 Education 0.598 0.011 Measuring the performance 0.484 0.049 Source: Authors' calculation As it is evident from Table 4, there was a statistically significant correlation between stakeholder cooperation with all tourism destination management instruments, starting from education (training), where this correlation is the most clearly expressed, through promotion, strategic planning, up to performance monitoring. 3.4. Interpretation of results Cooperation between stakeholders is considered to be a basic prerequisite for efficient management of a tourism destination and its sustainable development. Research has shown that it is insufficiently developed in tourism destinations in Montenegro. In fact, the respondents generally rated the state of stakeholders' cooperation in the area of tourism development in tourism destination with an average grade of 3.06. Observed by management instruments, the best rated is cooperation in the field of promotion and distribution (mean grade of 3.59), which is confirmed by other studies on this subject that indicated that cooperation is developed the most in the field of tourism destination marketing (WTO, 2000, p. 12), while the worst-rated cooperation is in the field of planning (mean grade 2.88). A relatively low rating of cooperation in the field of measuring performance (mean grade 3.18) indicates that there is little exchange of information between participants in torism destination management that would allow better monitoring of the effects made by activities undertaken at a tourism destination. Also, cooperation in the product development field (mean grade of 3.12) was evaluated as insufficiently developed, which means that many creators of a partial tourism product are still not aware of the fact that achievement of the general objectives set for the integrated tourist product, as well as the final toourists' choice of products at a touristm destination, depend on their active partnership. The lack of cooperation between key development entities hinders the creation of a comprehensive destination value chain, and thus creates important preconditions for offering a wide range of quality experience, which negatively affects the market competitiveness of the integrated tourist product, and therefore the tourism destination as well. Stakeholder Cooperation in Montenegrin Tourism Destinations – Current State and Constraints 97 Cooperation between tourism destination stakeholders in the field of planning was the lowest rated (mean grade 2.88). Stakeholders' cooperation is in theory recognized as a key factor for the implementation of plans (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Sautter and Leisen, 1999; Yuksel, Bramwell and Yuksel, 1999; Timur and Getz, 2008). For the activities related to preparation of tourism development in a tourism destination is essential the stakeholder approach, which will allow a synergy effect through cooperation between the public and private sector in development and implementation of plans, which is also a key for the success of plans' implementation. The basic principle in managing the development of tourism at the destination level should be for all stakeholders that are influenced by decisions about directions of development of tourism to have influence and to be involved in the decision-making process (Gray, 1985. Quoted in Raffay, 2007, p. 84), due to the principles of social fairness, and because of their potential synergy effects in the implementation of adopted tourism development strategies. Tourism destination plans are, largely, related to the stakeholders who are "outside" of the tourist organization that makes plans. Therefore, a plan of tourism destination might seem to some tourism destination stakeholders as if it is comming from the "outside". In such a situation they may feel excluded from the planning process and consider that the plan was, in some way, imposed on them. The solution for this issue is usually in a participatory planning process that includes all stakeholders which decisions about the directions of tourism development have an impact on, which improves acceptance of the plan and increases chances for proper implementation. However, poor cooperation between stakeholders is not highly ranked in the group that listed limitations for plans implementation in Montenegrin tourism destinations because it is in the "shadow" of financial and human resources limitations, but it is visible in the area of tourism development implementation. This is expected, given that realization of this type of plans requires cooperation of all tourism destination stakeholders, and not only of those directly linked to the development of tourism, and on the other hand, requires a comprehensive and long-term consideration of the whole problem of the future development of tourism. Poor cooperation between stakeholders is also noted when it comes to implementation of a marketing plan, though it was expected, it is not highly rated. When it comes to the promotional activities plan, no tourist organization indicated poor cooperation as a constraint for the implementation, which is also not surprising given that it is a more of an operational activitiy and a sort of activity where it is easier to organize and conduct cooperation between stakeholders. Also, cooperation on promotion activities is very concrete and "tangible" (eg. joint appearances at fairs, joint organization of study tours for journalists etc.), benefits of this cooperation are clear and visible in the short term, which has a positive and stimulating effect on cooperation (Boranić, Tomljenović and Ĉorak, 2011, p. 26). The research results show that respondents see the causes of poor cooperation primarily in the lack of planning documents for tourism development, underdeveloped communication channels, then a variety of interests, the absence of formal forms of cooperation and, ultimately, the absence of a leader or coordinator of activities. The problem that has been recognized in the channels of communication and the diversity of interests confirms the findings of the literature review in which various authors warn about the same problems and constraints faced by developed tourism destinations, as well as the question of how to ensure better connectivity, communication and trust between the different groups of stakeholders in tourism destinations. One of the tasks for leading tourism destination 98 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ management organization is to recognize interests of all stakeholders involved in tourism development on destination level and through creating tourism development policy, in determining goals of tourism development that will enable all stakeholders to recognize a framework for the realization of their own individual goals. Testing the differences between the three regions in Montenegro showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the regions in rating stakeholder cooperation in general and by fields of cooperation, except in the area of measuring performance. Generally, it can be said that cooperation between tourism destination stakeholders in Montenegro does not vary by region. The results also showed that there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between stakeholder cooperation and management instruments, which confirms that efficiency of tourism destination management depends on the level of stakeholder cooperation at a tourism destination. This confirms the findings of literature review in which various authors suggest that successful tourism destination management requires cooperation among stakeholders. CONCLUSION The results of this empirical research have confirmed that for more rational, socially responsible and commercially acceptable destination development, the stakeholder approach to sustainable destination management is necessary. This approach should include involvement of different public, private and civil stakeholders as their cooperation is a precondition for efficient management of sustainable tourism development. The stakeholder approach to sustainable destination management is particularly suitable because of the multisectoral character of tourism. It is therefore an imperative to develop cooperation between the public and private sector, whereby a destination management organization should have a coordinating role among stakeholders from both sectors. Although the tourist organizations system represents a good basis for the tourism development, local tourist organizations in Montenegro, along with the existing structure and jurisdictions, given their long-standing commitment to the promotion and organization of events, are not yet ready to assume the role of leading organizations in destination management. A great number of tourist organizations have poor financial and human resources and consequently, low functional activity. Therefore, for more rational, socially responsible and commercially acceptable directing destination development it is necessary to improve the organization of managing the development of tourist destinations in Montenegro. It is necessary to capacitate the existing system of tourist organizations for effective destination management through a partnership between the public and private sector, based on the destination management organization model. Otherwise, a tourist destination in Montenegro will be faced with the problem of quality and sustainable tourism development and building its image. Stakeholder Cooperation in Montenegrin Tourism Destinations – Current State and Constraints 99 REFERENCES 1. Blain, C, Levy, E.S., Ritchie J. R. B. (2005) Destination Branding: Insight and Practices from Destination Management Organizations, Journal of Travel Research, Volume 43: 328-338. 2. Boranić Ž. S., Tomljenović, R., Ĉorak, S. (2011) Cooperation between stakeholders in tourism destinations. In: Ĉorak, S. (ed.). Challenges of tourism governance, Book 5. Zagreb: Institute for Tourism. 3. Bramwell, B., Lane, B. (2000) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Clevedon, Channel View Publications. 4. Bramwell, B., Sharman, A. (1999) Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 26 (2): 392-415. 5. Buhalis, D. (2000) Marketing the competitive destination of the future, Tourism Management, Volume 21: 97-116. 6. Byrd, E. T. (2007) Stakeholders in Sustainable Tourism Development and their Roles: Applying Stakeholder Theory to Sustainable Tourism Development, Tourism Review, Volume 62 (2): 6-13 7. Carey, S., Gountas, Y. (1997) Tour Operators and Destination Sustainability, Tourism Management, 18 (7): 425-431. 8. Crouch, G.I., Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999) Tourism, Competitiveness and Societal Prosperity, Journal of Business Research, Volume 40: 137-152. 9. Dredge, D. (2006) Policy networks and the local organisation of tourism, Tourism Management, Volume 27: 269-280. 10. Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place, John Wiley, Chichester. 11. Jamal, T.B., Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning, Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1): 186-204. 12. Liu, Z. (2003) Sustainable Tourism Development, A Critique, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Volume 11 (6): 459-475. 13. Middleton, V. T.C., Hawkins, R. (1998) Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective, Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann. 14. Potts, T.D., Harrill, R. (1998) Enhancing Communities for Sustainability: A Travel Ecology Approach, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 3: 133-142. 15. Presenza, A., Sheehan, L., Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005) Towards a Model of the Roles and Activities of Destinationa Management Organizations, Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Science, www.academia.edu/1009194 (10.05.2015.) 16. Raffay, A. (2007) Stakeholder Involvement in Urban Tourism Development – a Tale of Two Cities, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Derby. 17. Ritchie, J.R.B., Crouch, G.I. (2000) The Competitive Destination: A Sustainability Perspective, Tourism Management, Volume 21 (1): 1-7. 18. Robson, J., Robson, I. (1996) From Shareholders to Stakeholders: Critical Issue for Tourism Marketers, Tourism Management, Volume 17 (7): 533-540. 19. Sautter, E. T., Leisen, B. (1999) Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 26 (2): 312-328. 20. Sainaghi, R. (2006) From Content to Processes: Versus a Dynamic Destination Management Model, Tourism Management, Volume 27: 1053-1062. 21. Sheehan, L. R., Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005) Destination Stakeholders: Exploring Identity and Salience, Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 32 (3): 711-734. 22. Swarbrooke, J. (1999), Sustainable Tourism Management, CAB International, Wallingford 23. Timur, S., Getz, D. (2002), Applying Stakeholder Theory to The Implementation of Sustainable Urban Tourism, City Tourism 2002 (Wober, K.W. ed.), Proceedings of European Cities Tourism's International Conference in Vienna: 194-210, Springer Economics, Austria. 24. Timur, S., Getz, D. (2008) A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (4): 445-461. 25. Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries, Tourism Management, Volume 21: 613-633. 26. WTO (2000), Public-Private Cooperation: Enhancing Tourism Competitiveness, Madrid, WTO 27. Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., Yuksel, A. (1999) Stakeholder Interviews and Tourism Planning at Pamukkale, Turkey, Tourism Management, Volume 20 (3): 351-360. http://www.academia.edu/1009194 100 LJ. PJEROTIĆ, M. RAĐENOVIĆ, A. TRIPKOVIĆ MARKOVIĆ STEJKHOLDERSKA SARADNJA U CRNOGORSKIM TURISTIČKIM DESTINACIJAMA – STANJE I OGRANIČENJA Za održivi razvoj turističkih destinacija potreban je koordiniran napor svih destinacijskih stejkholdera (turističkih aktera iz javnog, privatnog i civilnog sektora), sistematski razvoj i implementiranje planova upravljanja na svim nivoima, posebno na nivou turističke destinacije gde se odvijaju turističke aktivnosti, gde su turisti u interakciji sa pružaocima usluga i sa zajednicom, i gde se najviše osećaju pozitivni i negativni uticaji turizma. Rad se bavi pitanjem upravljanja turističkom destinacijom čija složenost proizilazi iz velikog broja destinacijskih stejkholdera čije je interese potrebno uskladiti. Sprovedeno je empirijsko istraživanje kako bi se utvrdilo stanje upravljanja, a posebno nivo stejkholderske saradnje u crnogorskim turističkim destinacijama. Zaključci i implikacije istraživanja su dati u radu. Na osnovu teorije stejkholdera istraživanjem se testira da li nivo saradnje između destinacijskih stejkholdera utiče na efikasnost upravljanja turističkom destinacijom. Rezultati su pokazali da saradnja između brojnih i raznovrsnih grupa stejkholdera u crnogorskim turističkim destinacijama još uvek nije dovoljno razvijena, jer se suočava sa brojnim ograničenjima od kojih se najviše ističu nedostatak planskih dokumenata, nedovoljno razvijeni kanali komunikacije i različiti ili čak suprotstavljeni interesi stejkholdera. Ipak, rezultati istraživanja predstavljeni u ovom radu ukazuju da postoji jaka pozitivna korelacija između nivoa stejkholderske saradnje i stanja upravljanja razvojem turističkih destinacija. Kljuĉne reĉi: turistička destinacija, destinacijski menadžment, stejkholderska saradnja.