Global Journal of Management and Business Research, F: Real Estate, Event and Tourism Management, Volume 22 Issue 3

power. They posed very high interest on farm tourism by their commitment in farm development and engaging in farm tourism operations. However, the lack of farm tourism association which can be a medium for their concerns make them less empowered to access technical and financial support from the government. Nonetheless, the government agencies recognize them as crucial in farm tourism development as shown in the social network analysis. Lastly, the community is viewed as the stakeholder with low interest and power because of their lack of knowledge on farm tourism and less involvement in farm tourism operation which need to be given attention because of their vital role in the industry. Generally, the stakeholders which are high in power and interest should be kept satisfied while those classified as low in power but with high interest should be monitored. On the other hand, those with low interest but high in power should be managed closely and the stakeholders which are low in power and interest should be kept informed. g) Governance Framework for Farm Tourism in Camarines Sur This part of the study combines the network analytical and ‘‘governance’’ perspectives. Thus, network governance is discussed in this section. Network as a form of governance is viewed as a mechanism of coordination, or network governance (Kenis and Provan, 2008). It promotes interdependency and coordination for mutual benefit (Arganoff, 2001). Sectors and actors (state, market, and civil society) come together in a policy cycle through joint interest in a specific activity and outcome that no one party can address without the contributions of the other. As cited by Huppe, et.al (2012) in the “Frontiers of Networked Governance”, governance networks do not merely aggregate resources, but are structured to take advantage that each participating sector brings different resources to the fore; they combine the voluntary energy and legitimacy of the civil-society sector with the financial muscle and interest of businesses and the enforcement and rule-making power and coordination and capacity–building skills of states and international organizations (Börzel, 1998; Creech, 2008; Goldsmith & Eggers 2004; Reinicke & Deng, 2000). These networks create bridges that enable various participants use the advantage the synergies between the resources that they contribute, allowing for the pooling of knowledge, the exchange of experience, and for the generation of a feasible institutional framework for fruitful collaboration. Because they span socioeconomic, political, and cultural differences, networks can transform what might otherwise degenerate into counterproductive confrontations across public, private and civil society sectors into constructive, collaborative relationships (Reinicke & Deng, 2000). Additionally, governance networks allow part of societal steering and problem solving to be accomplished by a wide variety of actors that agree to create problem solving spaces outside the government, to address all or some of the stages of strategy formation: (1) problem analysis (2) goal formulation stage, and (3) strategy development and implementation. Kenis and Provan (2008) categorized network governance into three modes(Table 8), the self- managed or participant-governed network, lead organization-governed network, and the network administration organization (NAO). Each of these has different structures and characteristics which may be considered in adopting the type of network governance in farm tourism. By examining the stakeholders’ profile and the network map of stakeholders using the characteristics of the three modes of network governance, two main factors were noted: The current farm tourism governance can still be improved by adopting a form of governance which will mold more functional stakeholders. Therefore, this study considered the four contingency conditions proposed by Kenis and Provan (2008) that are likely to affect the successful adoption of any of the three forms of network governance. According to them, these factors ( trust, number of participants, goal consensus, need for network-level competencies) are important and can explain considerable variance in the choice of one form or another. In general, they argue that as trust becomes less densely distributed throughout the network, and as the number of participants gets larger, as network goal consensus declines, and as the need for network-level competencies increases, brokered forms of network governance, like lead organization and NAO, are likely to become more effective than shared- governance networks. The characteristics of the farm tourism industry in Camarines Sur show that the network administrative organization (NAO) form of network governance is suitable to be adopted in Camarines Sur. This means that the industry should evolve from self-managed to network administrative organization type (NAO) of network governance. This considers the diversity of the stakeholders which come from the different sectors, the number of industry actors, and the need to centralize the processes so that a certain entity would be able to manage and sustain the network. It should be noted, however, that movement from either shared governance or a lead organization to an NAO involves strategic choice. That is, evolution is not simply a natural process that occurs as contingency components. Hence, a Governance Framework for Farm Tourism in Camarines Sur, Philippines 20 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue III Version I Year 2022 ( ) F © 2022 Global Journals • There is no separate entity which facilitates the operation. • There are very limited networks between stakeholders.