A New Disciplinary Perspective on Values-Based Placemaking: Humanistic Destinations

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has reignited the debate on potential scenarios for our future (Brouder, 2020; Gössling et al., 2021; Russo et al., 2020), as this recent and unprecedented crisis has shaken our generation (Harari, 2020) as human beings, citizens, workers, consumers and travellers. The external and internal shocks that have shaken our economies and societies have exposed the paradoxes, tensions and fragilities of the dominant ideological paradigm of neoliberalism, which focuses on profit rather than people and the planet (Gamble, 2019). These circumstances exacerbate injustice, unfairness and inequality in these uneven systems (Healey & Barish, 2019).

The ‘new normal’ that has emerged from the pandemic has brought expectations of changes in societal norms, attitudes and behaviour (Varna & Oswell, 2021). Communities worldwide are expressing the need to harness a new sense of togetherness to mitigate isolation and loneliness, strengthen community bonds and utilise the transformative power of mutual aid and collective action. New motivations are emerging to imagine, design and manage places, making them more accessible, friendly and inclusive. People expect to love and feel comfortable living in places where they are free to think and experience differently and meaningfully (Richards & Duif, 2018). Tourism is directly involved in this placemaking debate (Cheer, 2020). While driving the development of mainstream destinations (Dodds & Butler, 2019) and complementing the livelihoods and well-being of communities in rural and remote locations (Hockings et al., 2020), the tourism economy reveals old and new paradoxes, vulnerabilities and inherent crises (Fletcher, 2011).

Sustainability and sustainable development have been recognised as the main paradigm to address place development, transform placemaking and enable communities to thrive, regardless of the sector or industry group driving local development (Ghavampour & Vale, 2019). Adopting an outward-to-inward approach (from the macro to the meso and micro levels, including businesses and individuals) and calling on a triple bottom line approach, holistic planning and stakeholder engagement (Byrd, 2007), sustainability capitalises on the identity, resources, inspiration and potential of the local community to foster prosperity, promote people's well-being and protect the environment (Lang & Marsden, 2018). Despite efforts to advance sustainability, there is still little evidence that our communities are truly abandoning the growth trajectory and embracing balanced, creative and democratic placemaking concerned with people and the planet (Shevchenko et al., 2016).

Alternative approaches are gaining credit for addressing the current need for change in placemaking, emphasising issues of equality and ecology (Hopwood et al., 2005; Pirson & Lawrence, 2010). Humanistic management (HM) is a new area of research, practice, policy, teaching and training that fits well with equality-oriented transformative approaches to changing the current socio-economic paradigm (Pirson & Lawrence, 2010; Pirson et al., 2018). Its difference from other approaches lies in its inward-to-outward approach to economic and social change. At its core is the recognition, protection and flourishing of the unconditional dignity of every human being, which becomes a central organisational goal (Spitzeck, 2011) that affects both the internal and external contexts of business management. By putting human beings at the centre and leveraging dignity, ethics and legitimacy, HM fosters the humanisation of business towards humanism in economies and societies (Melé, 2016). This humanism- and values-based perspective is still largely unexplored and seems particularly relevant for addressing the challenges of placemaking from both a theoretical and managerial perspective.

This theoretical contribution addresses values-based changes in placemaking and regeneration, adopting a HM perspective to transform unequal places and create living places where people can live, work, interact and have meaningful experiences. The key research question is how HM can help transform places to make them more liveable and stimulate their communities to flourish. Tourist destinations are relevant places to discuss the application of humanistic tourism and the difference and advantage of HM in promoting humanistic destinations (Della Lucia, Giudici et al., 2021). The notion of humanistic tourism has recently been coined by studying the interdependent relationship between HM and tourism (Della Lucia & Giudici, 2021a), HM and sustainable tourism (Della Lucia & Giudici, 2021b) and the improvement of higher education in tourism management through HM (Della Lucia, Dimanche et al., 2021). However, the contribution of HM in destination management is still absent yet significant and urgent from a placemaking perspective (Della Lucia & Giudici, 2021a).

This chapter is developed as follows. The HM: Equality-Concerned Approaches for Changes in Placemaking section frames HM (Pirson, 2017) within transformative approaches that are concerned with equality and question the fundamental characteristics of today's society and how humans relate to the environment (Hopwood et al., 2005). The basic principles of HM are illustrated based on a qualitative content analysis of a sample of eligible articles identified through a systematic literature review conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach (Moher et al., 2009). Finally, the principles of HM are discussed from the perspective of places having a tourist specialisation to foster the development and flourishing of humanistic destinations and the humanisation of placemaking. This chapter concludes by arguing for an interface between HM and other transformative approaches, such as regenerative tourism (Araneda, 2017) and posthumanism (Guia, 2021), to overcome anthropocentrism and promote holistic value-based placemaking and regeneration.

HM: Equality-Concerned Approaches for Changes in Placemaking

The alternative approaches that are gaining credit for addressing the current need for change have stemmed from making sense of many different (mis)interpretations of (sustainable) development, distinguishing approaches that emphasise concerns for equality or ecology and mapping the different reformist and transformative viewpoints that address them (Hopwood et al., 2005; O'Riordan, 1989). The logic of these alternative approaches extends to placemaking without losing its meaning and value (Gibbons, 2020). Equality-conscious strategies prioritise (incremental or radical) changes to increase the accessibility, diversity and inclusion of places and address systemic inequalities to take steps to eliminate discrimination and prejudice (Varna & Oswell, 2021). They aim to create a more equitable and just placemaking, where everyone is treated with dignity and respect and has an equal opportunity to thrive and develop their capacities (Bellato et al., 2022). Ecological or eco-centric approaches are rooted in an ecological worldview and advocate changes (incremental or radical) to address environmental issues in placemaking, including carbon emissions, waste, pollution, biodiversity and natural resource management (Hopwood et al., 2005; O'Riordan, 1989; Reed, 2007). Their goal is to create more resilient placemaking, where the needs of society do not compromise the health and well-being of natural ecosystems.

HM has recently emerged from cross-sectional studies, including conscious and cooperative capitalism, social business, social entrepreneurship, business ethics and sustainability (Pirson, 2019). Due to this multidisciplinarity and the scope of change proposed, HM falls within transformational approaches that invoke social equality and value human well-being (Hopwood et al., 2005). It contrasts with the utilitarian and economic characteristics of ‘non-humanistic’ companies (Spitzeck, 2011) and ‘mechanistic management’ that have a purely economic mindset and consider human beings only as a factor of production (Melé, 2016). On the contrary, it provides humanistic and value-based management methods that focus on the value of human life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of well-being (Melé, 2016). Although HM began with a significant emphasis on the dignity of identity (i.e. at the individual level), over the decades, it has been extended to include multiple spheres of action and impact (Pirson, 2020; Winchenbach et al., 2019). Human dignity extends to the organisational context, humanising businesses and bringing humanism into economies and societies (Kimakowitz et al., 2011; Melé, 2016; Spitzeck, 2009). The humanisation of business (Pirson & Turnbull, 2011) promotes the unconditional dignity of every human being (Spitzeck, 2011) through the development of human virtues and capabilities, in all their forms, to their fullest extent (Melé, 2003). In turn, humanistic leadership legitimises a radical change in the interaction between (human) beings, companies, society and the economy, creating a culture of trust, mutual respect and inclusion in which people feel valued and motivated to contribute to the development of a sense of purpose and ethical behaviour within and outside the organisation. In this way, HM seeks to change the current socio-economic paradigm and the way human beings relate to each other and the environment and other beings.

HM Principles

A systematic literature review conducted using the PRISMA approach (Moher et al., 2009) allowed us to shed light on the principles of HM. The search for ‘humanistic AND management’ in the Scopus and Web of Science databases generated 1,686 articles. The sample was reduced to 720 articles by limiting the subject areas to social sciences, economics, business and decision sciences. Articles unrelated to the research questions were excluded by a double screening of titles, abstracts and keywords. The final sample comprised 72 eligible studies, supplemented by 15 articles identified through snowball sampling. Most of the articles are theoretical contributions based on HM in an organisational context. However, they emphasise the need to interconnect the company or organisation with the place and environment in which it operates and integrate the theory and practice of HM (Dillon, 2021; Melé, 2016; Spitzeck, 2009).

Manual qualitative content analysis of the eligible sample, including content coding and code reduction, provided details on the pillars of HM – human dignity, ethics and legitimacy (Fig. 9.1). Dignity is at the core of the humanistic approach and recalls the inherent universality and equality between people (Pirson et al., 2018). Respect for human beings and the inherent virtues, values and rights of human beings is unconditional: dignity cannot be measured, priced, lost or diminished (Melé, 2016) and is remarkable in all cultures across historical eras (Dierksmeier, 2011). The idea of treating people as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end is reflected in inter-human relations, the workplace, the economy and society. People should be valued for their virtues, unique skills and contributions, and their work should be fulfilling and meaningful.

Opens in a new window.

Fig. 9.1.

Humanistic Management Pillars and Their Characteristics.

According to Dierksmeier (2011), the result is the self-fulfilment of all people. The synergistic link between dignity, enterprise and society (Dillon, 2021) founds an ‘enlightened management and economism’ that strives to promote and develop dignity and well-being through managerial practices (Pirson, 2017). Protecting human dignity and promoting well-being creates the conditions for justice, equality, humanised economy, community activities and equitable relationships through which the individual flourishes and society progresses (Dierksmeier, 2011; Melé, 2009; Pirson, 2017). When managers' decisions align with humanistic reasoning, well-being, prosperity, welfare and social responsibility become the primary metrics for assessing value generation (Dillon, 2021; Donaldson & Walsh, 2015). Non-financial evaluation reinforces HM, which includes generating unity in social life, acting with justice and pursuing the common good (Melé, 2016).

The ethical dimension of HM is based on mutual respect, reciprocity and the common good. The principles, values and norms that enable people to distinguish and judge what is good or questionable provide individuals with a basis for making fair decisions and judgements and taking actions within and outside the business context (Melé et al., 2011). The alignment between personal and institutional ethics is reflected in the duty of care, the recognition of taking responsibility for decisions and actions inspired by justice and equality and the search for harmonisation between moral and financial logic (Spitzeck, 2011). In humanistic organisations, decision-making actively includes a range of stakeholders, increasing their motivation and improving organisational outcomes (Kimakowitz et al., 2011; Pirson & Turnbull, 2011). The ethical work environment created in humanistic organisations generates a virtuous circle of positive dynamics, including the building or rebuilding of social capital. The latter is a by-product of this context resulting from organisational design and managerial activities incorporating ethics into the general manager's dimension (Melé, 2009).

Normative legitimacy based on values, ethics and norms underpins shared governance models, voluntary leadership and responsible business activities, which are fundamental to individual, organisational and systemic responsibility. Shared governance is a participative, network-oriented structure that enables people to participate actively in decision-making processes (Pirson & Turnbull, 2011). This structure reduces levels of authority in organisations, focuses on human capabilities (Pirson & Lawrence, 2010) and incentivises shared efforts for common purposes (Dillon, 2021). Transformational leaders are the change agents that followers voluntarily recognise for the leadership of these governance structures. They can promote critical and responsible thinking and practice and create a climate of trust, enabling long-term relationships, understanding different needs and generating social and financial value (Pirson & Lawrence, 2010). The humanist leader thus enables stakeholders to espouse the organisation's purpose, considering the needs of the community of which they are a part (Melé, 2016). The legitimacy of humanism is thus reflected in the creation of shared value for all stakeholders, from employees, shareholders and customers to the community, the environment and the public (Dillon, 2021; Kimakowitz et al., 2011; Spitzeck, 2011). Creating shared value means recognising the interconnectedness of all beings and harmonising human activity with the natural environment (Melé, 2016).

Dignity, ethics and legitimacy link humanistic values to corporate responsibility for human prosperity and sustainable development. Business and economic activities that incorporate the principles of HM enable places and their communities to meet their needs and prosper, thereby increasing the well-being of society. Tourism is a crucial sector in this regard (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006).

Humanistic Destinations: The HM Difference and Advantage

Destinations are places with a predominant tourism specialisation that are managed and marketed by a destination management organisation (DMO) whose main purpose is to engage an open and flexible system of multiple interdependent stakeholders (Gálvez-Rodríguez et al., 2020) to promote collective value creation through collaboration, sharing and trust in the destination's physical and digital (business and tourism) ecosystems (Cabiddu et al., 2013). Destination management and marketing domains include geographical and administrative areas, social and cultural capital and local communities and their resources, products and services (UNWTO, 2007). The image and perception of the destination define its tourism market and competitiveness. Experience design and meaningful and engaging experiences are at the core of the destination's value proposition.

The multifaceted dimensions of destinations pose sustainable placemaking challenges that must be addressed to enhance destination vitality and promote community well-being, sustainable experience design and meaningful visitor experiences. The processes of shared value creation revolving around the notion of humanistic tourism – understood as a value-based business and development model aimed at exposing and transforming inhomogeneous systems and creating economic, human, social and environmental value (Della Lucia & Giudici, 2021a) – can be combined with the HM principles outlined above to activate a humanistic transformation of destinations and the humanisation of placemaking.

The notion of humanistic destination (placemaking) is derived from the discussion of each group of humanistic tourism interactions and value creation (Della Lucia, Dimanche et al., 2021) – human-to-human, human-to-nature, human-to-technology and human-to-economy – through the lens of the dimensions of HM – dignity, ethics and legitimacy. This discussion emphasises the humanistic difference and advantage (Della Lucia, Giudici et al., 2021) that is based on human beings and their multifaceted interactions: questioning established perspectives in tourism (and destination) management inherited mainly from neoliberal approaches (Dodds, & Butler 2019; Fletcher, 2011) and interpreting the importance of human dignity and values that have so far received little attention in tourism management but respond to urgent social needs.

The human-to-human interaction is at the core of the value propositions of destinations and revolves around the encounter between local communities and travellers (Della Lucia, Dimanche et al., 2021). The humanistic dimension of this encounter is related to the return of tourism as a social force (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006, 2020) and an instrument of conviviality (Illich, 1973). By connecting local communities willing to welcome travellers and travellers responding to community needs by ‘meeting locals and living like a local’ (Richards, 2014), destinations foster capacity-building, build greater well-being and fulfil broader social promises (e.g. justice, equality, equity and autonomy) embedded in destination brands. The mutual recognition of each other's dignity and the mutual respect and ethics that underpin the encounter between local communities and visitors activate the roles of tourism as a soft transformative service and of destinations as transformative places (Galeone & Sebastiani, 2021). Transformative services and destinations allow local community, creativity and culture to flourish and recognise the right of every human being to actively participate in creating and living meaningful experiences, travelling fairly and honestly (Kay Smith & Diekmann, 2017). The foundational values of inclusion, respect, trust, fairness, openness and caring that two-way relationships emphasise also reflect an individual and societal legitimacy, understood as a personal and mutual assumption of responsibility for the promotion of conviviality: an ethical, mutually beneficial encounter based on collective efforts for common and elevated purposes. In this way, internal and external stakeholders endorse the value system built and shared in the destination through human encounters and interactions. This value system provides the basis for co-creating a desirable value proposition and meaningful experiences. It also incorporates changes in how people think, act and live influencing social innovation in destination services (Kabadayi et al., 2019). Ultimately, a humanistic destination is a place designed, managed and promoted to foster diversity, inclusion and respect. Social equality in the destination's human–human interaction grounds a sense of belonging, citizenship and understanding among social groups, including travellers as temporary residents. Furthermore, it enables destinations to respond to the challenges of the tourism industry by leveraging people's dignity and rights.

The human-to-nature dimension is another destination value proposition. It is threatened by global challenges (including climate change, pollution, natural resource depletion, biodiversity loss and waste), exploitative development patterns and poor regulation that increase the pressure of human activity on the natural environment. This dimension is reminiscent of the notions of convivial conservation (Fletcher & Büscher, 2020) and environmental justice (Lee & Jamal, 2008). These notions call for humans, non-humans and nature to live side by side in meaningful coexistence, supporting the livelihoods of people living in close contact with wildlife and nature, promoting equitable practices in the use, protection and conservation of the environment and ensuring a fair distribution of environmental benefits and costs. Environmental justice is as relevant as social equality for destination and placemaking, as they are interdependent. Environmental degradation and risks are likely to occur in tourist locations with little accountability for behaviour, interactions and resources. In turn, environmental (in)justice extends to experience design, human encounters and visitor experience, as nature coexists with humans and the built environment. It is a resource and a destination attraction, and a destination value. Therefore, nature is a (living) being with dignity that must be recognised and protected, acknowledging its value and rights, and promoting fair practices in dealing with it. In destination management, marketing and placemaking, the discourse on the conservation and sustainable transformation of the environment is relevant, multifaceted and multi-layered in terms of the legitimacy to act and the tools used. It involves conservation regulations (international, national and local) and sustainable development plans (e.g. for natural World Heritage Sites and protected areas), environmental policy, destination spatial differentiation strategies (Weaver, 2012), corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies, environmental certifications and labels. DMOs largely influence their practical implementations as orchestrators of destination management and marketing plans in a joint effort with policymakers, the local community and travellers visiting the destination. In summary, a humanistic destination is a place that recognises the intrinsic value of nature and promotes convivial conservation and environmental justice in human–nature interactions by adopting strategies and tools to address an ecological worldview (Reed, 2007) and a thriving living system (Mang & Reed, 2012). When humans and nature coexist without anthropocentric domination of the former over the latter, the former strives to create positive benefits and outcomes for the natural environment.

The human-to-technology interaction captures the growing potential of information and communication technology and its use in destination management and marketing. This interaction is embedded in digital ecosystems of destinations (Ivars-Baidal et al., 2019) and e-democracy (Sigala & Marinidis, 2012). The digital revolution makes it possible to overcome space, distance, time and other constraints by creating virtual places that comprise networks of destination stakeholders. Digital ecosystems register the progressive shift of power and control from DMOs to destination stakeholders, legitimising them to take responsibility in destination decision-making, helping to generate content and visitor experiences and building destination strategies, brand reputation and perception (Trunfio & Della Lucia, 2019). Therefore, technologies can enable the transition to e-democratic destination management and marketing, in which tourists and stakeholders can access and actively participate in the co-creation of destination value (Munar, 2012). The by-mechanism is a shared e-governance model that synthesises the legitimacy of dispersed stakeholders at the institutional, destination and community levels (Ruhanen et al., 2010). However, the acceptance and use of technology (Davis, 1989) becomes crucial for stakeholder access and inclusion in e-environments.

The creation of common goods (in addition to technology usability and interoperability and destination competitiveness) and the nature of human–technology and human–human interactions in virtual spaces are perceived benefits relevant to accessing and participating in the physical–virtual destination continuum (Trunfio et al., 2022). When they reflect the core values and norms (dignity, respect, fairness, ethics) of human interaction in the physical domain, human–technology interaction generates collective value and reduces its co-destruction through equitable communication, collaboration, trust and knowledge sharing among community members and travellers through interactive communication (Kabadayi et al., 2019). The latter includes tools to inform, monitor and manage visitor flows in ways that do not harm the dignity of individuals and the environment (particularly in protected areas and vulnerable natural habitats) or jeopardise interpersonal relationships among community members while they live meaningful experiences. Ultimately, a humanistic destination is a place that designs and manages human–technology interaction to serve people and the environment. Technologies are not an end in themselves, but their integration into destination management, marketing and visitor experiences aims to increase stakeholder legitimacy and e-democracy and improve the accessibility and inclusion of destination stakeholders in experience design.

Lastly, human-to-economy interaction reflects the evolving role of the tourism industry in the (sustainable) development and innovation of destinations. This interaction is at the centre of the debate on restarting the tourism economy on a new basis (Brouder, 2020; Gössling et al., 2021; Russo et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the call to address the tourism growth model's paradoxes, vulnerabilities and inherent crises. Destinations that adopt this model are criticised for the growth and profit rationale of tourism, their exploitation of people and the environment (Gössling & Hall, 2006), their unfair and exploitative labour practices and their environmental harms and risks (Bianchi & de Man, 2021). Inequality, injustice, prejudice, discrimination, precariousness and imbalances in wages and between work and family life are among the problems that urgently require a solution (Winchenbach et al., 2019). Tourism destinations and businesses are redesigning their development and business models to address sustainable development goals (UNWTO, 2020) and CSR (Farmaki, 2019).

The collective impact effort of destination stakeholders – from place governments and DMOs to businesses, organisations and community members – aims to mobilise the resources and capacities of many stakeholders to share the costs of transformation and the new economic opportunities resulting from social and environmental progress (Kramer & Pfitzer, 2016). However, resistance factors block and hinder business transformation (Oevermann & Mieg, 2021), particularly the dependence on previous development models, low community engagement and misperceptions (e.g. towards adaptive reuse, service orientation, waste management, etc.). Destinations' efforts are varied, but ‘all stand out as having done something special to be cleaner, greener, and kinder’ (Kinsman, 2021): recycling to invest in renewable energy, investing in ethical finance to improve environmentally and socially friendly activities, regenerating places to give them new life and improve community livelihoods, from post-industrial sites to local former fishing communities. Economic Nutrition Certification Marks have been created to show how destination revenues are reinvested in the local economy, creating a sense of ownership in conservation, and increasing community pride extended to non-profit making offers run by volunteers to produce nutritious fruits, vegetables and herbs. In addition, business leaders are paving the way for fair business practices that respect all legal frameworks, value the dignity and skills of every worker, support decent work and equal opportunity and develop relationships with travellers and other businesses on an ethical basis. Therefore, a humanistic destination is a place that promotes significant changes in the planning and management of the tourism economy to seek human-economic interactions based on values, echoing a hybrid economy (Burnes & Choi, 2021). Integrating humanistic values (dignity, respect, equity, ethics) into the tourism economy ensures social equality, environmental justice and e-democracy. They value cooperation and co-evolution, coopetition over competition, sharing and circular economy over profit, quality over quantity and authenticity over standardisation. DMOs, as legitimate destination orchestrators, play a central role in inspiring and guiding this shift in mindsets, strategies and collective actions.

Open Conclusion

HM's founding principles and values can help design, manage and transform places to become more accessible, inclusive, transformative and environmentally friendly, stimulating host and guest communities to thrive (Pirson, 2017). While discussing the application of HM in places with a tourism monoculture, the emerging notion of humanistic destination incorporates and interconnects the principles that placemaking must invoke by undertaking humanistic transformation. Humanistic placemaking places humans at the centre and promotes transformation along pathways of change that redefine how humanity perceives our relationships with the economy, each other, nature and other beings and technology (Della Lucia & Giudici, 2021b). It makes use of a hybrid economy to foster a combination of market and nonmarket exchange mechanisms (Burnes & Choi, 2021), conviviality and social equality to bring people together for common and high purposes (Illich, 1973), environmental justice to ensure equitable distribution of environmental benefits and costs (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2022) and e-democracy to promote widespread participation and equalisation of power (Sigala & Marinidis, 2012).

The application of HM to value-based placemaking involves a holistic transformation that echoes other holistic approaches that can complement and overcome its inherent anthropocentrism to address the current need for change. In recent decades, regenerative tourism and posthumanism have ignited a lively debate in tourism research to move beyond a neoliberal, capitalist approach to people and the planet. Regenerative tourism (Araneda, 2017) is an eco-centric transformative approach that works on systemic health by aligning human activity with natural limits (Mang & Reed, 2012). It views a place as an ecosystem that interconnects actors, processes and activities (Dredge, 2022) rather than as a collection of individual isolated units (Meadows, 2009). The net-positive result of regenerative development combines the renewal of community livelihoods and well-being with the restoration of ecosystem health (Bellato et al., 2022). Posthumanism (Guia, 2021) goes beyond humans and non-humans to embrace the vulnerable and disempowered, whomever and whatever they may be. It proposes an ethical regime and political responsibility to address the commodification and depoliticisation of tourism and promote regional transformation. Its underlying affirmative ethics recognises that ‘the self exists in intricate relationships with the other’ and is individual, relational and political (Guia, 2021, pp. 510 and 516). In conclusion, promoting holistic value-based regeneration in tourism and destination management and placemaking can benefit from the interface between HM and these transformative approaches to generate mutually beneficial encounters between humans and non-humans.