CC BY
11
АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО, МУНИЦИПАЛЬНОГО И КОРПОРАТИВНОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ В СФЕРЕ УСЛУГ
STATE, MUNICIPAL AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN SERVICES SECTOR: CURRENT ISSUES
UDC 338.48 EDN: ZRMNKX DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7089326
Elias José MEDIOTTE
Federal University of Viçosa - UFV (Viçosa, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil) PhD student in Public Administration, Master in Public Administration e-mail: elias.mediotte@ufv.br, ORCID: 0000-0003-0370-0806
Magnus Luiz EMMENDOERFER
Federal University of Viçosa - UFV (Viçosa, State of Minas Gerais, Brazil) PhD in Human Sciences (Sociology and Politics), Associate Professor ORCID: 0000-0002-4264-8644, e-mail: magnus@ufv.br
PUBLIC GOVERNANCE EVALUATION METHOD FOR COLLECTIVE DELIBERATIVE
BODIES IN TOURISTIC MUNICIPALITIES
Abstract. This article presents a method to evaluate Public Governance in Collective Deliberative Bodies (CDBs) in touristic municipalities. Despite its multiple interpretations, Touristic Governance consists of many actors, including public management of stakeholders and the institutionalization of CDBs, which requires measuring its degrees of manifestation and operation in tourism. Our approach created an evaluation methodology with the indicators: Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration, using CDB governance degrees in touristic cities. Descriptive Statistical Analysis was applied, using the data collected by the actors who participated in these institutions. The presented case study concluded that this proposal involves public and collective issues, shown by Touristic Governance by the Data Collection Instrument (DCI), revealing the constitution and manifestation of Governance in its varying degrees in the tourism context.
Keywords: public governance, data collection instrument, collective deliberative institutions, tourism
@ 0®
Acknowledgments. Thanks to the research funding by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Brasil - CNPq - Processes 429443/2016-1; 310574/2016-1; 309363/2019-5) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (Coordenaçao para o Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES), Ministry of Education, funding code 001. Additional thanks to the editorial team and anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions that positively resonated with this methodological article
Citation: Mediotte, E. J., & Emmendoerfer, M. L. (2022). Public governance evaluation method for collective deliberative bodies in touristic municipalities. Servis v Rossii i za rubezhom [Services in Russia and Abroad], 16(4), 37-59. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7089326.
Article History
Received 8 June 2022 Accepted 16 September 2022
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
© 2022 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
УДК 338.48 EDN: ZRMNKX DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7089326
МЕДИОТТ Элиас Хосе
Федеральный университет Висозы (Висоза, штат Минас-Жерайс, Бразилия) Аспирант, магистр государственного управления; e-mail: elias.mediotte@ufv.br
ЭММЕНДЕРФЕР Магнус Луис
Федеральный университет Висозы (Висоза, штат Минас-Жерайс, Бразилия) кандидат гуманитарных наук (социология и политика), доцент; e-mail: magnus@ufv.br
МЕТОД ОЦЕНКИ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ МУНИЦИПАЛЬНЫХ ОРГАНОВ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ СФЕРОЙ ТУРИЗМА
В статье представлен метод оценки эффективности механизмов государственного управления в коллективных совещательных органах (CDB) туристических муниципалитетов. Несмотря на множество интерпретаций, процесс управления туризмом состоит из многих участников, включает механизмы государственного регулирования взаимоотношений между участниками рынка, и институции CDB. Это требует поиска механизма измерения степени эффективности этого процесса и качества функционирования системы муниципального управления сферой туризма. Наш подход позволил разработать методологию такой оценки на основе следующих индикаторов: сотрудничество, координация и сотрудничество с использованием уровней управления CDB в туристических городах. Был применен описательный статистический анализ с использованием данных, собранных субъектами, представленными в этих учреждениях. В представленном тематическом исследовании сделан вывод о том, что предложенная методология позволяет комплексно охватить общественные и коллективные проблемы с помощью Инструмента сбора данных (DCI), учитывает систему и структуру управления сферой туризма на различных уровнях.
Keywords: государственное управление, инструмент сбора данных, коллегиальные совещательные органы, туризм
Для цитирования: Медиотт Э.Х., Эммендерфер М.Л. Метод оценки деятельности муниципальных органов государственного управления сферой туризма // Сервис в России и за рубежом. 2022. Т.16. №4. С. 37-59. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7089326.
Дата поступления в редакцию: 8 июня 2022 г. Дата утверждения в печать: 16 сентября 2022 г.
1. Introduction
Touristic municipalities are expected to have Collective Deliberative Bodies (CDBs) in their administrative-political configurations. These institutions promote inter-and-intra municipal cooperation, aiming to help develop local tourism. The Municipal Tourism Council (Conselho Municipal de Turismo - COMTUR) is an example of CDBs controlled by local governments. These bodies are frequently considered CDBs, responsible for discussing, planning, and implementing public tourism policies at a local level. Moreover, CDBs have unique traces of Governance since they involve representatives of society, public institutions, private entities, and intra-and-inter organizational relations in their constitution.
In this way, Governance is understood as the cooperation between public-private partnerships through governmental agencies, the public sector, and stakeholders, who are non-public actors: private agents (associations, leading companies), civil society, and third sector entities (Mediotte, 2020). Since Governance is a term with many formats, interpretations, views, and focuses, its conception gets confused with the co-concession of public management to the private sector to provide public services to citizens. However, this concept traverses the criteria of co-concession to co-create and co-produce collective actions, generally decided upon in governance institutions (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011), which concentrate local power to plan and develop tourism.
To contextualize this study with the most probable conceptual perspective of Governance, it can be defined as a socio-political construction with value, depending on actors, groups in the network, their aspirations and values, and their decisions on responsibility, transparency, participation, communication, knowledge sharing, efficiency, and equity. Thus, tourism development demands tactics involving governance with co-participative actions, especially with the negotiation and coordination of formalized consensual decisions among all the participating actors (Me-diotte, Emmendoerfer, Santos & Fraga, 2021; Mediotte et al., 2022). Focusing on tourism,
these issues lack assertive plans that permit economic development, biodiversity preservation, and increased quality of life and well-being.
Furthermore, it is presumed that the effectiveness of CDBs can be limited by formalism, meeting legal requirements, or fundraising. This indicates difficulties for democracy and the exercise of citizenship to consolidate in the tourist trade. It also raises broader problems beyond the economic aspects focused on growth, like the adverse effects of tourism and the limited ability of classic and contemporary solutions.
Therefore, the main objective of this study is to present a model of Governance Evaluation of Collective Deliberative Bodies (CDBs) that act in developing touristic municipalities.
Based on the expertise of the authors of this study, this research's originality focuses on the evaluation of Governance in a broad or specific sense, under the institutional lens of CDBs that foster the development of local tourism and elaborating a method exclusive to the proposed theme. This accentuates the pioneering nature of this work due to the present methodological proposal's prominence when studying such a theme.
2. Precedents
Governance arose when the field of Administration was looking for answers to problems involving government, public service, transparency, accountability, interaction, cooperation, and citizenship. From the 1990s forward, the literature about public tourism policy started to change in the tourism context, shifting from government to Governance (Greenwood, 1993). This shift is significant for tourism development since it influences the relations between political actors, state capacity, instrument and indicator selection, and political problems (Hall, 2011).
Debates about tourism policies can address many problems like sustainability, community well-being, social cohesion, and poverty reduction. Once these issues are incorporated into politics, they represent how political actors and stakeholders work together (Hall, 2011; Jenkins & Dredge, 2007) and how different interests, ideas, values, and knowledge are introduced,
contested, negotiated, and discarded (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010).
Although the term Governance has existed since the 17th century, its current popularity is associated with the new dynamics and interde-pendency between politics, public policies, and interest groups. Nonetheless, studies about Governance started in Anglo-Saxon countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, as well as academic contributions from Germany, Denmark, and Holland (Sorensen & Torfing, 2005).
Provan and Milward (2001) show that an organization can lead governance networks, also called an institution or body, which assumes a central coordinating role, acting as a facilitator of collaboration, and often, communication and decision-making. When power is centralized, the communication can be formal and occur top-down. However, there are also community-controlled networks in which the community members themselves collaborate to achieve specific goals, most often impossible to achieve individually. The relationships are usually decentralized and less formal. Therefore, what is understood through these perspectives is the presence of formal and informal Governance mechanisms, with even the most formal ones being constituted by democratic legitimacy.
Moreover, Governance can assume different configurations depending on the context. Considering its complexity, Governance is better understood by identifying central co-production elements from the perspectives often referred to in the literature as Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration of public and non-public actors in favor of collective actions that aim at tourism development. Such elements will be adopted in this study as Governance indicators.
Coordination typically involves specifying and operating mechanisms for sharing information, decision-making, and feedback to unify and order partners' efforts and resources. Therefore, it seeks to ensure that partners' efforts produce desired outcomes with minimal losses so that they are planned and organized in the
short, medium, and long term (Mediotte et al., 2021; Mediotte et al., 2022). In this case, it is assumed that coordination can allow partners to exchange information and engage in joint planning during the formulation of collective actions (Gulati, Wohlgezogen & Zhelyazkov, 2012; Ring & Van De Ven, 1992).
Gulati et al. (2012) advocated that coordination is constituted by a deliberate and orderly alignment or adjustment of partners' actions to achieve determined goals bilaterally. It aims for efficient and effective outcomes. That said, according to D'Angella, De Carlo, and Sainaghi (2010), the diversity of actors, contributions, rewards, Governance mechanisms, and structures reveals a variety of institutional arrangements, which may lead to a deliberate strategy or spontaneous behavior and coordination tools established in a pattern.
Coordination can also promote broader cooperation since formalized procedures for problem-solving, decision-making, and conflict management can improve the predictability of interactions and give partners a sense of procedural fairness.
Cooperation has an essential influence on the relationships between inter-organizational networks and public-private partnerships. They tend to facilitate the coordination of public and private interests and resources needed when partners commit to cooperate (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010).
Once organizations identify the resources they need in other organizations and vice-versa, they are induced to cooperate to achieve objectives that would be unlikely to be achieved individually, and thus, public-private partnerships based on informal structures and strategic consensus are formed since they also influence the cooperative innovation capacity (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). In this aspect, given the interdependence of resources (money, time, technology, among others), the main challenge of cooperation is to prevent conflicts of interest and partners adopting behaviors contrary to what was agreed upon concerning their contributions and rewards,
Public governance evaluation method for collective deliberative С|ТлВ/Ой I I l/l
bodies in touristic municipalities , . „ НАУЧНЫИ
ЖУРНАЛ
making consensus and equity impossible.
Therefore, for the Cooperation degree to be predictable and satisfactory, it is necessary that all the partners' contributions be made available proportionally and that the rewards be defined by the criterion of equity, also according to the granted cooperation degree (D'angella et al., 2010).
Collaboration has its roots in American public life and administration. The American public ethos has directed collaboration toward two competing political traditions: classical liberalism and civic republicanism (Thomson & Perry, 2006), the latter referring to a critical factor called involvement.
D'Angella et al. (2010) point out that efficient and effective collaboration is not explicitly related to the potential resources employed in network structures but to the degree of involvement induced by these structures so that collective action can promote interactivity and joint decisions, aiming at mutual reciprocity and trust.
Thus, it is claimed that the key to effective or ideal Governance is strongly linked to participation, which suggests involvement (Mediotte et al., 2021; Mediotte et al., 2022). Therefore, collaboration is a process "through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and seek so-
lutions beyond their limited view of what is possible" (Gray, 1989, p. 5).
It is emphasized that Collaboration differs from Coordination and Cooperation in terms and depth of interaction, integration, commitment, and complexity. This perspective becomes more evident as collaboration is believed to be a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiations, creating rules and structures that govern their relationships and behavior or deciding on issues that have brought them together. It is a process that involves shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions, suggesting a more significant degree of collective action of a higher order than coordination or cooperation since it has more perspectives, inter-organizational relationships, networks, and collective action (Gray, 1989; Ring & Van De Ven, 1992; Thomson & Perry, 2006).
That said, based on the contextualization of the present study and other works on Governance, with highlights like Trentin (2014) and the Federal Audit Court [Tribunal de Contas da Uniao - TCU] (2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2016, 2018), the categories of analysis and verification were created, as well as the description of their assumptions, distributed in subcategories that will guide the measurement of Governance, presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - Governance Indicators
Indicators Verification Categories Description (Sub-categories)
Planning Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.)
Formalization Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.)
Coordination Control Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest
Guidance Disclosure Tools
Direction Self-Assessment and Feedback
Deliberation Decision Making - Consensus
Cooperative Relations Resource Management - Isonomy
Cooperation Informal Relationships Accessibility
Interorganizational Networks Public-Private Partnerships
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
Source: Mediotte {2020) based on Trentin {2014) and TCU {2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2016, 2018).
3. Techniques and procedures
Governance is a means of instituting a public arena where all kinds of social actors, socio-cultural movements, and political forces interact at all levels of government, from local to supranational. Considering this, our methodology developed for this study is relevant mainly because it considers that individuals will construct debates and action fields in touristic Governance bodies, expressing their identities, ideologies, beliefs, and objectives using their voices and powers of persuasion, negotiation, and consensus. Thus, these bodies are where democratic spaces are (de)constructed.
Preparation
This study uses a quantitative approach. Thus, such analysis allows the researcher to use controlled methods that yield generalizable knowledge with external validity and correlate variables by reference to understand and predict phenomena (Reis & Reis, 2002).
A questionnaire was prepared to present the method for evaluating Governance in touristic municipalities, called the Data Collection Instrument (DCI), composed of questions and premises related to activities directly or indirectly linked to Governance, covering relevant criteria to measure it.
It should be noted that the verification items present in the DCI are based on a diverse network of bibliographic references. Furthermore, although there is a singularity among the Governance indicators (Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration) bordering on homogeneity, it is necessary to warn that both have distinct characteristics. However, their individual study should not be discarded since these indicators should be understood as sui generis, even though they are complementary.
As indicated in Table 1, the categories and subcategories of analysis that subsidized the preparation, application, and data analysis were built from predefined indicators. After, the DCI was systematized through variables (questions) separated by clusters, which exert interdependence among the indicators, totaling 47 questions
distributed in 3 distinct, interdependent blocks.
To show the results, Descriptive Statistical Analysis is recommended to "organize, summarize, and describe the important aspects of a set of observed characteristics" (Reis & Reis, 2002, p. 31) from the data collected in the Data Collection Instrument (DCI) form.
The Instructions
The following analysis criteria were used to evaluate/measure the Governance degree in a Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) developing local tourism are:
1. Each of the 3 (three) analysis indicators corresponds to 33% (Coordination), 33% (Cooperation), and 33% (Collaboration) of the total percentage (100%). Regardless of the total number of variables (questions) contained in the subgroups formed by the analysis subcat-egories, it is understood that each indicator must have equal weight in the total Governance measurement. In this case, each variable received a percentage equivalent to the number of other variables within each subgroup, not exceeding 100%.
2. The questions will be answered by selecting one of the following options, proposed ac-
cording to the Likert scale (1 to 5 points):
Totally disagree 1 Disagree more than agree 2 Partially Agree 3 Agree more than disagree 4 Totally agree 5
С C c C с
3. The answered questions should be distributed in the form of premises, to which the respondents select the option most appropriate to their CDB, according to their perspective, being 1 - Totally disagree; 2 - Disagree more than agree; 3 - Partially agree; 4 - Agree more than disagree; 5 - Totally agree. Considering that for each variable, there is a possibility of answers ranging from 1 to 5, each point should be represented based on the assumption that there is no variation (interval) between points and that the maximum allowed below five should be % of the points, which is equivalent, in a percentage conversion, to 0.25 or 25% between one and the other, with the extremes represented by 0 and 1 (100%), that is:
Public governance evaluation method for collective deliberative CE|JA\/UUI Il/l
bodies in touristic municipalities , . „ HVxnH^
mYrHA^ I
• 1 - Totally disagree = 0 (0%);
• 2 - Disagree more than agree = 0.25 (25%);
• 3 - Partially agree = 0.5 (50%);
• 4 - Agree more than disagree = 0.75 (75%);
• 5 - Totally agree = 1 (100%).
4. Therefore, the measurement/evaluation of Governance should be done according to the total percentage of questions, among all blocks, from the total sum of answers obtained, according to the averages through the points of the Likert Scale. The Governance Degree can be classified as Absent, Low, Medium, High, or Full. As there is a variation (intervals) between the classification of the Governance Degrees, it is considered that there are five possibilities to perceive Governance. Full governance occurs when it has 100% of the average of the total answers obtained, and it is absent when it is within 0% to 0.99%. In this case, 99% of the distribution is the remaining estimates, and 33% of the distribution will be allocated to each interval, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Classification of the Governance Degree
Governance Dei ,ree
Cooperation Degree (GCp) 33%
Coordination Degree (GCd) 33%
Collaboration Degree (GCb) 33%
(Governance Degree |
3
Governance Degree Classification
Absent 0,00% a 0.99%
Low (Initial) 1,00% a 33.99%
Medium (Moderate) 34,00% a 66,99%
High (Advanced) 67,00% a 99,99%
Full 100,00%
Source: elaborated by the authors
The interpretation of the Governance Degree occurs in four stages:
• Stage 1: observe the Degree using the sum of its indicators;
• Stage 2: observe the degree of each indicator to detect different behavior among the CDBs analyzed which have the same Governance Degree;
• Stage 3: observe the subcategories to obtain more detailed information about possible differences among the CDBs analyzed which have the same Degree;
• Stage 4: describe the Governance by the degrees identified by each indicator and the particularities determined by observing differences between categories and subcatego-ries.
To measure the Governance Degree from the answers, Excel is recommended. Initially, one can choose any indicator to measure/evaluate the degree of Governance in tourism CDBs. Since they are interdependent, the order does not affect the final result. For this study, the formulas of the Governance evaluation start with the Cooperation indicator, represented in the detailed formulas in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Calculation to measure Cooperation
COOPERATION
(CpDW = 33%) CpDV = CRV + IFRV + ITNV / NC CpD% = CpDV /NRP x 100%
Cooperative Relations
(CRW= 33.33%) CRV= RMW x (RMAV) + IW x (IAV) CR%= CRV / NRP x 100%
Source: elaborated by the authors.
Relacionamentos Informais
(IFRW = 33.33%)
IFRV- AW x (AAV)
IFR%= IFRV /NRP x 100%
Interorganizational Networks
(ITNW = 33.33%) ITNV- P3W x (P3AV) ITN%= ITNV /NRP x 100%
Resource Management
(RMW = 66%)
RMAV = TS/ NQ
RM%= RMAV / NRP x 100%
Accessibility (AW = 100%) AAV = ST/NQ A% = AAV / NRP x 100%
Isonomv
(IW = 33%)
IAV = TS / NQ
I %= IAV/NRPx 100%
Public-Private Partnerships
(P3W = 100%) P3AV = TS / NQ P3%= P3AV / NRP x 100%
It is worth mentioning that the calculations start with the Subcategories because the variables (questions) are grouped here, which subsidize the results of the other items based on answers obtained by the research participants or actors linked to the Local Tourist Governance Collective Bodies.
Key to the Calculation for the Cooperation Indicator:
- Resource Management Subcategory:
• RMW - Resource Management Weight -As this subcategory is linked to the Cooperative Relations Category and the latter presents two interdependent subcatego-ries (Resource Management and Isonomy), the weight of 66% was attributed, considering that there are three questions in the category, 2 for Resource Management and 1 for Isonomy. In this case, considering 33% for each variable out of 100%, the two totaled 66% for this subcategory, while the other has 33% weight 33%;
• RMAV - Resource Management Average Value;
• TS - Total Sum;
• NQ - Number of Questions;
• RM% - Resource Management Percent;
• NRP - Number of Research Participants, considering that the maximum "5 - Totally agree" (equivalent to one for each answer) is the same total as the number of research participants.
For the other subcategories, the same keys apply, and they should be replaced by the initials of their nomenclatures, for example: Isonomy (I); Accessibility (A); Public-Private Partnerships (P3). - Cooperative Relations Category:
• CRW - Cooperative Relations Weight;
• CRV - Cooperative Relations Value;
• CR% - Cooperative Relations Percentage.
For the other categories, the same key applies but should be replaced by the initials of their nomenclatures, for example, Informal Relationships (IFR); Interorganizational Networks (ITN). It is worth noting that out of 100%, the
weight of each category resulted in 33.33% since there are three categories.
- Cooperation Indicator:
• CpDW - Cooperation Degree Weight;
• CpDV - Cooperation Degree Value;
• NC - Number of Categories linked to the Indicator;
• CpD% - Cooperation Degree Percentage. The Governance Degree of the Coordination
Indicator calculation is represented in the Figure 2 formulas.
Key to the Measurement Calculation of the Coordination Indicator:
- Meetings Subcategory
• MW - Meetings weight - As this subcategory is linked to the Planning Category and the latter presents only one subcategory (Meetings), the weight of 100% was applied, considering that there are three questions total, all present in the Meetings subcategory. Considering 33% for each variable out of 100%, the sum totaled 100% for this subcategory.
• MAV - Meetings Average Value.
• TS - Total sum of the existing answers in the variables of this subcategory.
• NQ - Number of Questions.
• M% - Meetings Percentage.
• NRP - Number of Research Participants, considering that the maximum "5 - Completely Agree" (which equals 1 for each answer) is the same as the total number of participants in the survey.
For the other subcategories, the same key applies, and they should be replaced by the initials of their nomenclatures, for example: Documentary (D); Risk Management Systems (RM); Conflict of Interest (CI); Disclosure Tools (DT); Self-Assessment (SA); Feedback (FB); Decision Making (DM); Consensus (CO).
- Planning Category
• PW - Planning Weight;
• PV - Planning Value;
• P% - Planning percentage.
Public governance evaluation method for collective deliberative С|Тл\/МЫ I I l/l
bodies in touristic municipalities , . „ НАУпНЫ
ЖУРНАЛ
Figure 2 - Calculation to measure Coordination
Planning
(PW= 16.66%) PV= MW x (MAV) P% = (VP / NRP) x 100%
Meetings
(MW=100%) MAV =TA /NQ M% = (MAV / NRP) x 100%
COORDINATION
(CdDW = 33%) CdDV = (PV-fFVf CV-i- OVi
DIV + DEV) ' NC CdD% = (CdDV ' NRP) x 100%
Source: elaborated by the authors.
Formalization
(FW= 16.66%) FV= DW x (DAV) F% = (FV / NRP) x 100%
Control
(CW= 16.66%) CV= RMWx (RMAV) + CIW x (CIAV) C% = (CV / NRP)x 100%
Orientation
(OW= 16.66%) OV= DTW x (DTAV) 0% = (0V NRP) x 100%
Direction
(DIW= 16.66%) DIV= SAW x (SAAV) - FBW x (FBAV) DI% = (DIV NRP)x 100%
Deliberations
(DEW =16.66%) DEV= DMW x (DMAV) + COW x (COAV) DE% = (DEV NRP)x 100%
For the other categories, the same key applies, and they should be replaced by the initials of their nomenclatures, for example: Formalization (F); Control (C); Guidance (G); Direction (DI); Deliberations (DE). It is worth noting that out of 100%, the weight of each category resulted in 16.66% since there are six categories. For categories with more than one subcategory, the same format was used for the Cooperation indicator, with the percentage of variables (questions) not exceeding 100%.
- Coordination Indicator:
• CdDW - Coordination Degree Weight;
• CdDV - Coordination Degree Value;
• NC - Number of Categories linked to the indicator;
• CdD% - Coordination Degree Percentage.
The Governance Degree calculation of the
Collaboration Indicator is in Figure 3.
Key to the Calculation of the Collaboration Indicator:
- Commitment Subcategory:
• COW - Commitment Weight - As this subcategory is linked to the Formalization Category and the latter presents only one
Documentary
(DW = 100%) DAV = TS / NQ D% = (DAV / NRP) x 100%
4_У
Risk Managnient Systems
(RMW = 33%) RMAV = TS / NQ RM% = (RMAV / NRP) x 100%
V_^
Conflict of Interest
(CIW = 66%) CIAV = TS / NQ CI% = (CIAV / NRP) x 100%
Disclosure Tools
(DTW = 100%) DTAV =TS /NQ DT% = (DTAV / NRP) x 100%
4_/
Self-assessment
(SAW = 50%) SAAV =TS /NQ SA% = (SAAV /NRP)x
ч__;
Decisou Making
(DMW =25%) DMAV = TS / NQ DM% = (DMAV NRP) x 100%
Feedback
(FBW = 50%) FBAV =ST /NQ FB% = (FBAV / NRP) x 100%
Consensus
(COW = 75%) COAV = ST /NQ CO% = (COAV / NRP) x 100%
subcategory (Commitment), the weight of 100% was considered. There are two questions total in the subcategory Commitment. Considering 50% for each variable out of 100%, the sum totaled 100% for this subcategory.
• COAV - Average Commitment Value;
• TS - Total sum of the existing answers in the variables of this subcategory;
• NQ - Number of Questions;
• CO% - Commitment Percentage;
• NRP - Number of Research Participants, considering that the maximum value "5 -Completely Agree" (equals 1 for each answer), is the same total number of participants in the survey.
For the other subcategories, the same key applies, and they should be replaced by the initials of their nomenclatures, for example: Interactivity (IT); Engagement (E); Legitimacy (L); Stability (ST); Implementation (IP); Institutionalization (IN).
- Formalization Category:
• FW - Formalization Weight;
• FV - Formalization Value;
• F% - Formalization Percentage.
СЕРВИС
В РОССИИ
И ЗА РУБЕЖОМ
For the other categories, the same key applies, and the initials of their nomenclatures should replace them, for example: Informaliza-tion (IF); Reciprocity (R); Trust (TR); Joint Actions (JA); and Shared Authorities (SA). It is worth noting that out of 100%, the weight of each category resulted in 16.66%, given the number of six categories. For categories with more than one sub-category, the same format was used for the Cooperation indicator, with the percentage of variables (questions) not exceeding 100%.
The calculation of the Governance Degree using its indicators and based on the studied CDBs is represented by the formulas:
GDV = CpDV + CdDV + CbDV NI
GD % = GDV/NRP x 100% Key to measure Governance:
• GDV - Governance Degree Value;
• NI - Number of Indicators;
• GD% - Governance Degree Percentage.
For clarification and exemplification, numerical examples of each indicator, its constituent categories, and subcategories are presented in this paper's topic, "Case Study".
Table 3 also presents the percentages adopted for the weights used in constructing the DCI.
Figure 3 - Calculation to measure Collaboration
COLLABORATION
(CbGW = 33%) CbGV = (VF + VlF->- VR + VC +
VAC + VACO) / NC CbG% = (VGCb ' QPP)x 100%
Formalization
(FW= 16.66%) FV= COV x (COAV) F% = (FV / NRP) x 100%
Informatization
(IFW= 16.66%) IFV= ITW x (ITAV) IF% =(IFV /NRP)x 100%
Reciprocity
(RW = 16.66%) RV= EW x (EAV) R% = (RV /NRP) x 100%
Trust
(TW = 16.66%) TV= LW x (LAV) + STW x (STAV) T% = (TV / NRP) x 100%
Joint Actions
(JAW =16.66%) JAV= IPW x (IPAV) JÀ% = (JAV /NRP)x 100%
Source: elaborated by the authors.
Shared Authority
(SAW = 16.66%) SAAV= INW x (INAV) SA% = (SAAV /NRP)x 100%
Commitment
(COW =100%) COAV =TS /NQ CO% = (COAV / NRP) x 100%
Interactivity
(TTW= 100%) ITAV =TS/NQ IT% =(ITAV / NRP) x 100%
4_У
Engagement
(EW = 100%) EAV =ST /NQ E% = (EAV / NRP) x 100%
I J
Legitimacy
(L W = 66%) LAV =TS /NQ L% = (LAV / NRP) x 100%
4_/
Iniplementation
(IPW= 100%) IPAV = TS / NQ
VP% = (IPAV / NRP) x 100% ^_/
Institucionalizaatiou
(INW = 100%) INAV =TS /NQ IN% = (INAV / NRP) x 100%
4_/
Stability
(STW = 33%) STAV =TS / NQ ST% = (STAV / NRP) x 100%
4. Data Collection Instrument (DCI)
This Data Collection Instrument (DCI), developed by the authors of this study, is composed of questions and assumptions regarding the activities related to Governance and that cover relevant criteria to measure it with its constituent indicators. It was developed to highlight the Governance degree in touristic municipalities from Collective Deliberative Bodies (CDB), which
are understood to have interrelations with local development, primarily through their actions for the sustainability and perpetuation of tourism.
Therefore, it is recommended that the questionnaire be applied to the representatives that make up the Collective Deliberative Bodies of Tourism to measure the degree of governance. In the next section, a case study carried out in a touristic municipality in Brazil is illustrated in which the
results are presented in "graphs and tables and also synthesis measures such as percentages, in-
dexes, and averages", given the volume of information collected (REIS; REIS, 2002, p. 31).
Table 3 - Summary of the Governance Indicator Percentages
Indicator Categories Subcategories Variables (questions) % Weight Subcategory
Cooperative Relations (33,33%) Resource Management [sonomv 2 1 66% 33%
Cooperation 33% Informal Relationships (33,33%) Accessibility 1 100%
Intcrorganizational Networks Public-private partnerships 5 100%
(33,33%) Planning (16,66%) Meetings 3 100%
Formalization (16,66%) Documentary 7 100%
Coord ¡nation 33% Control (16,66%) Risk Management Sys. Conflict of Interest 1 2 33% 66%
Orientation (16,66%) Disclosure Tools 3 100%
Direction (16,66%) Self-assessment and Feedback 1 1 50% 50%
Deliberation (16,66%) Decision Making and Consensus 1 3 25% 75%
Formalization (16,66%) Commitment 2 100%
[□formalization (16,66%) Interactivity 2 100%
Collaboration 33% Reciprocity (16,66%) Engagement 4 100%
Trust (16,66%) Legitimacy Stability 2 1 66% 33%
Joint Actions (16,66%) Implementation 4 100%
Shared Authorities (16,66%) Institutionalization 1 100%
Total Variables (Questions) 47
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
DESCRIPTIVE DATA OF THE ORGANIZATION
CDB Data
CDB Name: CDB Acronym: CDB Location: Representative's name: Representative's position: Representatives nomeclature: Telephone: E-mail:
CDB Operation Scope:
Municipal Regional State National International
r r r C r
i. According to your perception, does the CDB where you work have actions that involve achieving collective objectives, always together with other organizations and in a consensual manner, aiming at the development of tourism? If yes, to what degree (low, medium, high)?
BLOCK i: COOPERATION
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Cooperation Cooperative Relations Informal Relationships Interganizational Networks Resource Management - Isonomy Accessibility Public-Private Partnerships
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) i 2 3 4 б
1. There is sharing of resources (time, material, immaterial, financial, and human) available and necessary to implement collective strategic actions. r r r r r
2. The allocation of resources to establish and sustain programs is shared. r r r r r
3. Shared resources generate opportunities for partners through their collective efforts. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Cooperation Cooperative Relations Informal Relationships Interganizational Networks Resource Management - Isonomy Accessibility Public-Private Partnerships
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) i 2 3 4 б
4. There is flexible access to internal organizational resources, such as information, systems, and documents relevant to tourism development. r r r Г Г
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Cooperaçâo Cooperative Relations Informal Relationships Interganizational Networks Resource Management - Isonomy Accessibility Public-Private Partnerships
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) i 2 3 4 б
5. There are partnerships at the regional, state, national, and/or international levels. r r r r r
6. Partnerships occur between the public and private sectors to define tourism development strategies. r r r r r
7. Partnerships occur to raise public and/or private financial resources necessary for implementing public policies for tourism development. r r r r r
8. There are cases in which only the public sector raises funds. r r r r r
9. There are cases where only the private sector raises the financial resources. г г r г г
BLOCK 2: COORDINATION
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Coordination Planning Formalization Control Guidance Direction Deliberation Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.) Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.) Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Tools Self-Assessment and Feedback Decision Making - Consensus
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
10. The meetings between CDB representatives are held periodically and on previously scheduled dates, except occasionally, under popular pressure, or in r r r r r
emergencies.
11. The meetings are attended by all participants in the Governance network (public actors and stakeholders), or at least the minimum quorum to validate the deliberations. r r r r r
12. The meetings include collective strategies or action plans for tourism development as a central issue on the agenda. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Coordination Planning Formalization Control Guidance Direction Deliberation Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.) Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.) Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Tools Self-Assessment and Feedback Decision Making - Consensus
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
13. From the meetings, plans are drawn up for tourism development focusing on sustainability. r r r r r
14. Records are generated to guide the actions of this CDB aiming at the sustainable development of tourism. r r r r r
15. There is a documentary collection that covers planning, implementation roles and responsibilities, monitoring, communication, and resources required for tourism development policies. r r r г г
16. There are documents that formalize the objectives and goals to be achieved and how activities are carried out in partnership with other actors and organizations. r r r r r
17. There are documents such as rules and procedures (Example: Code of Ethics) detailing allowed and forbidden behaviors and sanctions for participants in case of opportunism. r r r г г
18. Participants are aware of and have access to documents that contain guidelines about the behaviors allowed and forbidden to them. r r r r r
19. It has updated the inventory of tourism demand contemplating the variables exposed in the Tourism Categorization Study according to the Tourism Map (Means of Accommodation and Visitors). r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Coordination Planning Formalization Control Guidance Direction Deliberation Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.) Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.) Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Tools Self-Assessment and Feedback Decision Making - Consensus
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
20. The internal action of this CDB enables the democratization and decentralization of activities. r r r r r
21. Educational actions are developed based on the organization's Sustainable Development, seeking to mitigate risks (costs, time, inactivity, improbity, waste, among others). r r r r r
22. Actions are established to minimize conflicts of interest that may influence their decisions. r r r r г
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Coordination Planning Formalization Control Guidance Direction Deliberation Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.) Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.) Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Tools Self-Assessment and Feedback Decision Making - Consensus
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 б
23. The calendar of meetings, events, and campaigns, of interest to all Governance networks and community participants, is promoted in the primary communication media (internet, institutional sites, social networks, among others). r r r r r
24. The actions produced, related to the formulation and implementation of public policies for tourism development, and the results of these actions, are published or widely disseminated in the primary communication media (internet, institutional sites, social networks, among others). г r r Г г
25. Principles of transparency and accountability are adopted for disclosure to society in the media (internet, institutional sites, social networks, among others.). r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Coordination Planning Formalization Control Guidance Direction Deliberation Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.) Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.) Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Tools Self-Assessment and Feedback Decision Making - Consensus
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 б
26. A self-evaluation system linked to the planned results is adopted. r r r r r
27. The evaluation of the results (feedback) is presented to the participants regarding these results' positive and negative aspects. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Coordination Planning Formalization Control Guidance Direction Deliberation Meetings (Assemblies - Hearings - Seminars etc.) Documentary (Minutes, Memos, Code of Ethics, etc.) Risk Management System and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Tools Self-Assessment and Feedback Decision Making - Consensus
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 б
28. Participants feel able to make decisions that aim to direct, deliberate, and monitor collective actions. r r r r r
29. Decisions are made by consensus. r r r r r
30. Decisions are made by voting. r r r r r
31. There is a decentralized management posture promoting more horizontal participation in activities relevant to tourism development. r r r r r
BLOCK 3: COLLABORATION
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
32. Intra-organizational skills (initiative, leadership, sustainability, teamwork, accountability) are strengthened. r r r r r
33. Inter-organizational skills (sustainability, teamwork, accountability) are strengthened alongside the civil community and regional and national tourism structures (SETUR, MTur, among others.). r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
34. Interaction and good relationships are promoted to improve the intra-organizational climate, the conditions of daily work, mutual commitment, and, consequently, the performance of collective actions. r r r r Г
35. Interaction and good relationships are promoted to improve the inter-organizational climate, the conditions of daily work, mutual commitment, and, consequently, the performance of collective actions. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
36. Collective interests prevail over individual interests. r r r r r
37. All network participants are engaged in implementing collective actions, seeking to produce mutual efforts and widely supported results. r r r r r
38. There is the engagement of the participants aiming for transparency in reciprocal relationships, focusing on the sustainable development of tourism. r r r r r
39. There is the engagement of network participants in transversal, multidisciplinary, and decentralized public policies. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
40. Your stance in collective deliberations on tourism development is welcomed and contemplated. r r r Г Г
41. The interventions of the other network participants in the collective deliberations on tourism development are equal. r r r r r
42. The collective actions for tourism development are always attributed to the same participants. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
43. There is open dialog permeated by different visions to build abilities to change, innovate, and promote plurality to joint actions guided by consensus and not by coercion. r r r r r
44. Through the Governance network, concrete results from joint actions have been achieved. r r r r r
45. The implementation of joint actions has strengthened the governance network. r r r r r
46. There is an interaction among the participants and organizations of the Governance network aiming at long-term collective actions. r r r r r
Indicator Verification Categories Description (Subcategories)
Formalization Commitment
Informalization Interactivity
Collaboration Reciprocity Engagement
Trust Legitimacy - Stability
Joint Actions Implementation
Shared Authorities Institutionalization
In this Collective Deliberative Body (CDB) 1 2 3 4 5
47. There is a climate of trust and reciprocity among all participants in the Governance network, leading them to take shared risks. r r r r Г
5. Case study
Introduction
As aforementioned, we will present a practical study conducted with 9 participants of the most representative Collective Deliberative Body for local tourism, called the Municipal Council of Tourism (COMTUR), established in the municipality of Tiradentes, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The field research took place between July 22-27, 2019, and August 6, 2019, from a study related to a Master's Dissertation (Mediotte, 2020) in Public Administration, linked to the Department of Administration and Accounting of the Federal University of Viçosa, in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
The data reinforce this methodological article's originality, uniqueness, and relevance. The practical application of the DCI occurred through a form on Google Forms, in which the Governance indicators addressed in this study were arranged. The research participants, formed by COMTUR representatives from Tiradentes, obtained access to the questions in the DCI. From the responses received, the data were arranged in an Excel spreadsheet for later tabulation and interpretation, as recommended by Descriptive Statistical Analysis.
The research locus
The empirical locus of this study is the municipality of Tiradentes (MG), located in the Campo das Vertentes region, southeast of the state of Minas Gerais. In 1889, through state Decree No. 3, the municipality was named after Joaquim José da Silva Xavier, considered a martyr of Brazilian Independence (Tiradentes, 2018). Moreover, the municipality's economic activity is exclusively focused on tourism. Its main ways to boost the tourist trade are scenic, cultural, architectural, natural, and religious attractions and events.
Although the municipality has 15 (fifteen) Councils (Tiradentes, 2019) and 29 (twenty-nine) mapped Associations, this study will illustrate COMTUR as the focus of DCI application to evaluate tourism governance since this institution is very expressive in the development of local tourism.
COMTUR was created under Law No.
2,535/2010 and is a "deliberative, consultative and advisory body, responsible for the conjunction between Public Authority and civil society" (Tiradentes, 2010, Art. 1, p. 1). COMTUR is a deliberative body with its own Internal Regulations, where issues related to tourism that directly impact the municipality's routine are discussed (Tiradentes, 2014, p. 243). By Municipal Law No. 2,968/2015, this Tourism Governance Body was constituted by 11 members and their replacements, appointed by the municipal mayor, with a two-year-mandate (TIRADENTES, 2015, p. 1).
Results
In response to this study's central objective, the Governance Degrees identified in this specific CDB are demonstrated below, according to the results obtained through the quantitative analysis of the data collection. Therefore, the results are presented in the following order of the Indicators: Cooperation - Coordination - Collaboration.
The data regarding the Governance Degree of the Cooperation indicator are presented in Figure 4.
The Governance degree of the Cooperation indicator was classified as "Advanced", considering that its percentage was 75.4%, within the 67% to 99% range, corresponding to the High Governance Degree classification. The lowest value of the results was 67.78% for the category Inter-organizational Networks from the subcategory Public-Private Partnerships. Although it is classified as a High degree, it can be observed that this subcategory is very close to the Medium degree (34% to 66% range).
The data regarding the Governance Degree of the Coordination indicator are presented in Figure 5.
The Governance Degree of the Coordination indicator was classified as "Advanced" since its percentage was 72.98%, within the range of 67% to 99%, corresponding to a High Degree of Governance. The lowest value in the results was 59.11% from the Formalization category in the Documentary subcategory. As it was between the 34% to 66% range, it was classified as a Medium Degree.
Figure 5 - Governance Degree for COMTUR's Coordination indicator
COORDINATION
(CdDW = 33%) CdDV = 6.57
72.98%
Piauuing
(PW= 16.66%) PV= 7.41
P%= 82.33%
Formalization
(FW = 16.66%) FV= 5.32
F%=59.11%
Control
(CW = 16.66%) CV= 6 93
-. = 77%
Orientation
(OW = 16.66%) OV= 6.5
)%=72.22%
Direction
(DIW = 16.66%) DIV= 5.38
di%=59.72%
Meetings
(MW= 100%) MAV = 7.41
%=82.33%
Documentar}'
(DW= 100%) DAV = 5.32
•/.=59.11%
Risk Management Systems
(RMW=33%) RMAV = 8.25
RM%=91.67%
Disclosure Tools
(DTW = 100%) DTAV =6.5
DT% =
72.22%
Self-assessmeut
(SAW = 50%) SAAV =4.75
SA% = 52.78%
Conflict of Interest
(CIW = 66%) CIAV =6.38
ci%=70.89%
Feedback
(FBW =50%) FBAV =6
% 66.67%
Source: elaborated by the authors.
Deliberations
(DEW = 16.66%) DEV=7.87
DE%=87.44%
Decision Makiug
(DMW= 25%) DMAV =8
DM%=88.89%
Consensus
(COW = 75%) COAV = 7.83
co%=87%
Another highlight refers to the Control category, in which the subcategory Risk Management System is close to full governance at 91.67%. However, the Conflict of Interest sub-category, linked to the same subgroup, did not
follow this result, scoring 70.89%, making the Control category reach 77%. Thus, from the perceptions obtained through field research, based on interviews and in loco observation, it is understood that actions to minimize conflicts of
interest can be succeeded by existing pacts between the actors representing COMTUR. This corroborates the high results in the Deliberation category at 87.44%, which is the highest degree among the six categories evaluated. The highest
subcategories are Decision Making at 88.89% and Consensus at 87%.
The data regarding the Governance degree of the Collaboration indicator are presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6 - Governance Degree for COMTUR's Collaboration indicator
Formalization
(FW = 16.66%) FV= 5.5
0/0 = 61.11%
Commitment
(COW = 100%) COAV = 5.5
хж-61.11%
III formalization
(IFW= 16.66%) IFV= 6.88
F%=76.39%
Interactivity
(ITW= 100%) ITAV = 6.88
IT%=76.39%
ч_/
COLLABORATION
(CljGW = 33%) CbGV = 6.70
сьс%=74.48%
Reciprocity
(RW = 16.66%) RV= 7.19
R%=79.86%
Trust
(TW = 16.66%) TV= 7.59
то-84.37%
Engagement
(EW = 100%) EAV =7.19
E%=79.86%
Legitimacy
(LW = 66%) LAV =8.13
.%=90.28%
Stability
(STW = 33%) STAV =6.75
ST% = 75%
Joint Actions
(JAW= 16.66%) JAAV= 6.81
JA%=75.69%
Shared Authorities
(SAW = 16.66%) SAAV= 6.25
Source: elaborated by the authors.
i = 69.44%
Implementation
(IPW= 100%) IPAV = 6.81
n>%=75.69% 4,_J
Institucionalization
(MW = 100%) INAV = 6.25
ш%=69.44% 4_/
The Collaboration Governance Degree indicator was classified as "Advanced" at 74.48%, thus within the 67% to 99% range, corresponding to the High Governance degree classification. Formalization had the lowest indicator degree at 61.11%, occupying the Medium level. In this category, Relationships and Intra-organizational and Inter-organizational Abilities are addressed, such as initiative, leadership, teamwork, and accountability. According to the answers obtained, Intra-organizational skills are more substantial (64%) than Inter-organizational skills (58%). In these cases, COMTUR's internal relationships are focused more while relationships with other tourism structures (regional and national) and the civil community are weaker.
Another category that deserves to be highlighted is Trust. It had the highest Governance
degree among the categories at 84.37%. According to field research perceptions, this result was expected since the actors involved with tourism in Tiradentes form a homogeneous core. Their relationships are very close, and the existing trust is highly perceived. It is possible to notice that the Legitimacy subcategory is close to full Governance at 90.28%. This corroborates field research observations that the actors perceive themselves as legitimized within COMTUR, generating a climate of mutual trust among them.
Although it is within the same range, Stability did not maintain the exact percentages, at 75%. Furthermore, it is observed that the Shared Authorities category also presented different results from the others, at 69.44%. Despite its High Degree, field research showed that, when it comes to taking risks and deliberating on themes
irrelevant to COMTUR, the actors act more as consultants and delegate these actions to other entities.
The synthesis of COMTUR's Governance Degree, considering its constituent indicators,
categories, and subcategories, can be seen in Table 4.
Finally, based on these interpretations, Figure 7 presents the Governance present in COMTUR, with its degrees based on its indicators.
Table 4 - COMTUR's Governance Degree COMTUR
Indicator Indicator Degree % Category Category Degree % Subcategory Subcategory Degree %
('«operation 75.4% Cooperative Relations 80.67% Resource Management 81.94%
lsonomy 80,56%
Informal Relationships 77,78% Accessibility 77,78%
Interorganizational Networks 67,78% Public-Private Partnerships 67,78%
Coordination 72,9»% Planning 82,33% Meetings 82,33%
Formalization 59,11% Documentary 59,11 %
Control 77% Risk Management Systems 91, 67%
Conflicts of Interest 70.89%
Orientation 72,22% Disclosure Tools 72,22%
Direction 59,72% Self-assessment 52,78%
Feedback 66,67%
Deliberations 87,44% Decision Making 88.89%
Consensus 87%
Collaboration 74,4»% Formalization 61,11% Commitment 61,11%
Informatization 76,39% Interactivity 76,39%
Reciprocity 79,86% Engagement 79.86%
Trust 84,37% Legitimacy 90.28%
Stability 75%
Joint Actions 75,69% Implementation 75.69%
Shared Authorities 69,44% Institutionalization 69.44%
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
In this case, it is concluded that Governance in COMTUR was measured at 74.29%, given the answers obtained by the ICD questionnaire. As this degree is within the 67% to 99% range, COMTUR is classified as a High (Advanced) Degree of Tourism Governance in the municipality of Tiradentes (MG).
6. Final considerations
Through a challenging proposition, the present study sought to present an empirical contex-tualization of an increasingly emerging theme in Public Administration: Public Governance in Tourism. Measuring actors' willingness to public and collective issues, evidenced through Governance in tourism municipalities, is vital. Likewise, the DCI made it possible to generate answers about the constitution and manifestation of Governance through its existing degrees and how it has been operated in the tourism context. Therefore, understanding the Tourism Governance degree and the role of the actors that constitute it becomes a challenge. It is essential to think about local tourism development, whether in the universe of reflection or the space of realization.
Thus, this study provides subsidies to understand the dynamics of governance through its indicators, categories, and subcategories that make up and integrate a network of organizations, entities, actors, and individuals designated for local development in touristic municipalities, considering them not as geographically delimited spaces, but as socio-spatial constructions.
This article reveals that, when studying Governance indicators, which show the interconnections between Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration, it is essential to take measures that permeate the convergences, in-tersectionality, and transversality of the public (or private) agendas and guiding aspects of Tourism Governance, involving public management, policymakers, and stakeholders. In this sense, Governance evaluation is important when it materializes in the local development process as a sine qua non condition for essentially economic aspects, to the detriment of multidimensionality and socio-spatial aspects with the institutionalization of Collective Deliberative Bodies.
Finally, we highlight that the COVID-19 pandemic context imposed many challenges on society, especially local development. With this premise, we believe that this context limits Governance's amplitude and debates among actors, given the redirecting of deliberations that converge with collective actions to develop local tourism. However, hoping for a better future, the IDC proposal presented in this study, under Tourism Governance, could be a first step in returning to social integration, strengthening identities and feelings linked to a place, and making them more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable. Thus, it is relevant to identify new representations and evidence of Governance that manifest in this current global context to operate tourism at different levels and perspectives.
References
1. Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism governance: a comparison of three network approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7-28.
2. Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da Uniao [TCU]. (2014a). Dez passos para a boa governanga. Brasilia, DF.
3. Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da Uniao [TCU]. (2019). Questionário Perfil GovPessoas 2013. URL: <shorturl.at/dgkyN>
4. Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da Uniao [TCU]. (2018). Perfil de Governanga e Gestao Públicas: Ciclo 2018. URL: <shorturl.at/jnvCX>
5. Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da Uniao [TCU]. (2014b). Referencial básico de governanga aplicável a órgaos e entidades da administragao pública. Versao 2. Brasilia, DF.
6. Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da Uniao [TCU]. (2016). Referencial para avaliagao da governanga do Centro de Governo. Brasilia, DF.
7. Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da Uniao [TCU]. (2014c). Referencial para avaliagao de governanga em políticas públicas. Brasilia, DF.
8. D'angella, F., De Carlo, M., & Sainaghi, R. (2010). Archetypes of destination governance: A comparison of international Destinations. Tourism Review, 65(4), 61-73.
9. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating. Finding, common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
10. Greenwood, J. (1993). Business interest groups in tourism governance. Tourism Management, 14, 335-348.
11. Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 531-583.
12. Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5). Special Issue Paper, 437-457.
13. Jenkins, J., & Dredge, D. (2007). Trends, perspectives and practice. In: Dredge, D., & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism planning and policy. John Wiley & Sons, 112-156.
14. Mediotte, E. J., Emmendoerfer, M. L., Knupp, M. E. C. G., Carvalho, A. N., Volta, C. L. C. C., & Santos, Y. T. (2022). Evidencias da Governanga na Gestao de Cidades Criativas da Gastronomía: análise de Agöes Coletivas em Instancias municipais no contexto brasileiro. Revista Inclusiones: Revista de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, 9. Edigao Especial, 24-57.
15. Mediotte, E. J. (2020). Avaliagao da Governanga em Instancias Deliberativas Coletivas e sua relagao com o Planejamento Turístico no municipio de Tiradentes (MG). 239 f. Dissertagao (Mes-trado em Administragao). Universidade Federal de Vigosa (UFV), Vigosa.
16. Mediotte, E. J., Emmendoerfer, M. L., & Oliveira, G. A. (2020). A Polissemia da Governanga Pública nos Estudos do Turismo: uma revisao sistemática. Revista Turismo em Análise, 31, 159-178.
17. Mediotte, E. J., Emmendoerfer, M. L., Santos, Y. T., & Fraga, B. O. (2021). Planejamento público e gerenciamento de crises no contexto da pandemia da Covid-19 em destinos turísticos no Brasil: Agöes sustentáveis ou reagöes económicas?. DOS ALGARVES, 40. Edigao Especial, 1-30.
18. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analisys - New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414-423.
20. Reis, E. A., & Reis I. A. (2002). Análise Descritiva de Dados. Relatório Técnico do Departamento de Estatística da UFMG. 2002. URL: <www.est.ufmg.br>
21. Ring, P. S., & Van De Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483-498.
22. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview, Boulder, CO.
23. Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195-218.
24. Tiradentes [MG]. (2019). Conselhos Municipais. URL: <shorturl.at/auGPZ>
25. Tiradentes [MG]. (2018). História e Turismo. URL: <shorturl.at/irvxS>
26. Tiradentes [MG]. (2010). LEI N° 2.535, de 14 de maio de 2010. Cria Conselho Municipal de Turismo, Cria o Fundo Municipal de Turismo e dá Outras Providencias. URL: <shorturl.at/tFJN9
27. Tiradentes [MG]. (2015). LEI N° 2968/15, de 11 de novembro de 2015. Altera a Lei N° 2535 de 14 de maio de 2010 que "Cria o Conselho Municipal de Turismo, Cria o Fundo Municipal de Turismo e dá Outras Providencias". URL: <shorturl.at/ovTY0>
28. Tiradentes [MG]. (2014). Plano Diretor Participativo de Tiradentes - Volume I: Perfil Municipal. URL: <shorturl.at/vH178>
29. Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review, 66, Special Issue. 20-32.
30. Trentin, F. (2014). Políticas de Turismo no Brasil: Tomada de Decisao e Análise das Estruturas de Governanga nos Destinos Turísticos de Armagao dos Búzios e de Paraty no Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. 495 f. Tese (Doutorado em Turismo). Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal, PT.
