* Corresponding author. Tel.: # 44 114 253 2885; fax: # 44 114 253 2881; e-mail: w.m.bramwell@shu.ac.uk Tourism Management 20 (1999) 351 — 360 Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey Fisun Yuksel, Bill Bramwell*, Atila Yuksel Centre for Tourism, School of Leisure and Food Management, Sheffield Hallam University, Pond Street, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK Received June 1998; accepted July 1998 Abstract This study examines the use of interviews to identify stakeholders’ views on the implementation of proposals contained in a tourism and conservation plan. The authors conducted interviews with stakeholders representing interests affected by the implementation of the Preservation and Development Plan for Pamukkale, a World Heritage Site in Turkey. The site contains dramatic travertine terraces and also ancient city ruins, with both threatened by tourism. Analysis of the interviews identified broad social representations and more specific views concerning the planning issues. Consideration is given to the value of stakeholder interviews for a continuous planning process, including for monitoring views on tourism and conservation issues, plan proposals and on progress in plan implementation. The findings could be of considerable help to Pamukkale’s planning authorities, although such stakeholder views may be ignored in the institutional context of Turkey’s centralised planning system.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Stakeholder interviews; Pamukkale; Continuous planning; Social representations; Centralised planning 1. Introduction It is becoming widely recognised that for tourist desti- nations to be successful they need to be planned. Places that allow tourism to develop without the benefit of planning often suffer from environmental and social problems, increased costs of conflict resolution, and from declining competitiveness as destinations (Dowling, 1993). In recent years, there has been a shift in tourism planning away from more formal and rigid methods toward more flexible, iterative processes for creating and implementing strategies. It is suggested that these con- tinuous processes are more responsive to changing cir- cumstances and should involve ongoing monitoring, evaluation, learning and adaptation (Bramwell, 1997; Gunn, 1994; Haywood, 1988). Increasing emphasis is also being placed on tourism planning involving the multiple stakeholders affected by tourism, including residents, public authorities and business interests, so that they may collaborate to develop a shared ‘vision’ for tourism (Jamal & Getz, 1997; Ritchie, 1993). While collaborative planning may be time consuming and difficult, it can be justified because potentially it can avoid the costs of resolving conflicts in the long term, it is more politically legitimate, and it can build on the store of knowledge and capacities of the stakeholders. A continuous tourism planning process can allow for the involvement of stakeholders in the formulation, im- plementation and adaptation of decisions. Continuing stakeholder involvement means the planning can re- spond on an ongoing basis to stakeholder views on tourism issues, on proposals in plans, and on plan imple- mentation. With a flexible approach to tourism planning, the level and type of stakeholder involvement can change at different planning stages if this is needed. However, the involvement of stakeholders will be influenced by such factors as their level of interest in the issues and the openness of key decision makers to outside participation (Jamal & Getz, 1996; Marsden & Murdoch, 1998). Many techniques are available to involve stakeholders in tourism planning, including drop-in centres, nominal group technique sessions, citizen surveys, focus groups, citizen task forces, and consensus-building meetings (Healey, 1997; Marien & Pizam, 1997; Ritchie, 1988, 1994). It is important that the choice of technique is based on the goals behind their use. For instance, Glass (1979) suggests that systematic surveys may be favoured 0261-5177/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 1 7 - 4