Destination Governance: Using Corporate Governance Theories as a Foundation for Effective Destination Management

Abstract

This article adds to the ongoing debate on the performance of corporate-based versus community-based destination management models. New forms of integrated, centrally managed destinations challenge the business models of traditional, historically grown destinations driven by decentralized ownership. This article analyzes the contribution of corporate governance theories to the explanation of destination governance structures and evolution. The research uses six selected dimensions of corporate governance, and the operationalization through concrete items, to analyze and assess twelve destinations in the Swiss Alps. Various destination governance forms and mechanisms reveal the context for conditions for success.

Determining the Sustainability Factors and Performance of a Tourism Destination from the Stakeholders’ Perspective

“…Likewise, the stakeholders' leadership is also critical to achieving the competitive objectives of the destination [32]. The governance of the destination has also been studied in the specialized literature because the destination needs all of the agents to share common objectives in order to obtain a competitive advantage over other destinations [10,33]. A competitive advantage can be achieved if the overall appeal of a tourism destination is superior to alternative destinations with similar target market segments [34,35].…”

“…In an increasingly saturated marketplace, the development and promotion of a tourist destination must be guided by analytic frameworks that focus on the concept of competitiveness [9]. Thus, the combined success of individual actors and the entire destination depends on the efficient coordination and integration of individual companies' resources, capabilities, products and services [10,11], as well as a leadership and governance of the destination based on close cooperation among all of the agents involved [9,12,13].…”

Resilience to climate change in a cross-scale tourism governance context: a combined quantitative-qualitative network analysis

“…At the same time, they continue to maintain strong individual municipalities, leading to economic benefits but also to changes in local identity and culture (e.g., Oviero-Garcia et al 2008, Pechlaner et al 2012. Destination governance is dependent on the network of actors delivering a number of products and services (Ruhanen et al 2010, Presenza and Cipollina, 2010, Haugland et al 2011, while destination success, as well as that of individual actors, is dependent, among other aspects, on governing complex networks (Beritelli et al 2007). Tourists experience their stay as one package, though such experiences comprise a multitude of services delivered by stakeholders along the tourism supply chain (Murphy et al 2000, Michel 2001).…”

“…Fast, sudden changes mostly relate to clearly identifiable adaptation tasks, whereas slow, gradual climate change mostly relates to more complex, not clearly identifiable actions of mitigation and innovation (Folke 2006). Both types of responses can either be coordinated by a governing body, for example, the local political council, a tourism destination management organization (DMO; e.g., Beritelli et al 2007), or be implemented by individual actors or ad hoc groups of actors (see, e.g., Nordin and Svensson 2007). Therefore, climate change responses are to be understood as processes taking place at different scales of governance (see Ingold et al 2010).…”

A model of collaborative innovation between local government and tourism operators

“…After several studies into collaborative innovation or PPP in tourism, Queiroz and Rastrollo-Horrillo (2015) state that there are five theories that justify the decision to collaborate in tourism: (1) the Resource Dependence Theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), where stakeholders possess important resources through which they are able to control other types of resources (Greenwood 1993;Wang and Fesenmaier 2007;Nordin and Svensson 2007); (2) the Transaction Cost Theory (Williamson 1975), which justifies collaboration to reduce the costs of information and negotiation to acquire competitive advantages (Beritelli et al 2007;Wang and Fesenmaier 2007;Wang 2008); (3) the Strategic Management Theory (Porter, 1990;Prahalad and Hamel 1990) by applying the creation of a complete tourist product that offers an all-round tourist experience, which is achieved by the complementarity of agents (Pechlaner and Tschurtschenthaler 2003;Wang and Fesenmaier 2007;Czernek 2013); (4) the Network Theory (Freeman and McVea 1984;Granovetter 1985;Wood and Gray 1991;Gulati 1995) which states that relations among agents are promoted by recognition, mutual acceptance and seeking common interests; (5) the life cycle theory (Czernek 2013;Santos et al 2014) which identifies endogenous factors that can determine competitiveness in view of the entry of new competitor tourist destinations.…”