The issue of destination management has become an important issue in recent decades as a result of the sustained development of tourism on both the demand and supply sides, and has developed in response to the new trends observed in the tourism market. marked on the one hand by the increase in competitiveness on a global scale, and on the other by the strong emergence of paradigms such as sustainability.
In the world, some theoretical and empirical models of destination management have been developed, some have studied, above all, competitiveness factors and in others the economist vision of tourism has prevailed, its verticality and the priority of private entities in the success of said management mechanisms. The present work aims to establish a theoretical referential framework about the management of tourist destinations.
Keywords: tourist destination, management, model, competitiveness
Introduction
The issue of destination management has become an important issue in recent decades as a result of the sustained development of tourism on both the demand and supply sides, and has developed in response to the new trends observed in the tourism market. marked on the one hand by the increase in competitiveness on a global scale, and on the other by the strong irruption of paradigms such as sustainability and local development as an alternative in response to the global economic crisis and globalization processes (Manente, 2008; Gómez, Torres and Menoya, 2012).
In the world, some theoretical models of destination management have been developed, but in those that have been put into practice, the economic vision of tourism has prevailed, and when not, the verticalization of the activity has prevailed and the role has been prioritized. of private entities in the success of these management mechanisms.
The role of destination management is to administer and support the integration of different resources, activities and agents involved through appropriate policies and measures, which requires both governmental competencies in decision-making and functional matters (planning, organization and control. business activities) (Manente, 2008).
A local management model of sustainable tourist destinations should be understood as a public management tool that makes it possible to integrate the various components of the town as a sustainable tourist destination, so as to ensure both its long-term economic profitability and the conservation and management of the factors that they can position it competitively in the international tourism market; highlighting the importance of measuring, monitoring and interpreting tourism as an economic phenomenon at the local level, understood as the most appropriate dimension for development plans and decision-making on tourism.
Development
1. Design and nature of tourist destinations
The definition of tourism is based on two main axes: the set of activities carried out by tourists (and the goods and services that they carry with them) and the fact that these activities are carried out in places other than their usual environment and in certain conditions (temporary and non-profit reasons). This second circumstance, the materialization of activities in spaces outside the usual environment, refers to the concept of a tourist destination. The term “destination” is an extensive, diverse and complex concept to define, which can be specified from multiple angles and perspectives (Boualem, Reda and Bondarenko, 2011; Manente, 2008), in what Padurean (2010) considers as a debate without end. However,In most of the revised definitions it is possible to find coinciding points that almost always place emphasis on the geospatial aspect of the phenomenon and on those of operation in economic (market, product) and psychological (consumer motivation) terms (Boualem et al., 2011). Despite this nature of totality and complexity of the tourism phenomenon, the concept of destination is still linked to a spatial dimension, since tourism practices are also defined by mobility and displacement (Violier, 2009).the concept of destination is still linked to a spatial dimension, since tourist practices are also defined by mobility and displacement (Violier, 2009).the concept of destination is still linked to a spatial dimension, since tourist practices are also defined by mobility and displacement (Violier, 2009).
The most recurrent theoretical debates have been around the concept of destination itself, the determinants of its competitiveness and attractiveness, structure and dynamic balance between actors and classification criteria.
The criteria for defining a tourist destination found in the literature cover a fairly wide range. The author has identified the following eight criteria as the most representative of the concept:
- destination as a delimited geographical zone, area, site or place (Bieger, 1992; Bull, 1994; OMT, 1999, 2005, 2007; Jafari, 2000; Valls, 2000; Bigné et al., 2000; Lanquar, 2001; European Communities, 2002; Manente and Minghetti, 2006; Manente, 2008; Laesser & Beritelli, 2013); destination as a center of tourism production, that is, as the confluence between supply and demand or space where the tourist experience occurs (Bieger, 1992; Molés and Vilasaló, 1996; Tocquer and Zins, 1999; Valls, 2000; Bigné et al., 2000; Davidson and Maitland, 2002; Ejarque, 2005; Manente and Minghetti, 2006; Padurean, 2010); destination as a system, cluster, development pole or provider network depending on the tourist activity (Lanquar, 2001; European Communities, 2002; Ejarque, 2005; Botti et al., 2008; Manente, 2008; Padurean, 2010; Fyall, Garrod & Wang, 2012; Laesser & Beritelli, 2013); destination as a circuit or multi-destination (Bull, 1994; Jafari, 2000); destination as an image perceived or created by travelers, tourism experts and the media (Kye-Sung, 1990; Etchner and Ritchie, 1991; Stabler, 1988; Telisman-Kosuta, 1989; Gallarza et al., 2002; Bigné et al., 2000; Valls, 2000; Duval, 2010); destination as a travel motivator (OMT, 1999, 2007; Jafari, 2000; Bigné et al., 2000); destination as a mobile space (Bull, 1994; Jafari, 2000; Duval, 2010); destination as an integrated project (Boualem et al., 2011).
Annex 1 describes the fundamental concepts analyzed.
Starting from an etymological point of view, the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia calls a “tourist destination” a zone or geographical area located in a distant place and that is visited by the tourist, it has limits of physical nature, political context and perception by part of the market. From the business point of view, both strategic and organizational, the perimeter of the destination is constituted by the relationships that are built between the set of productive units that participate in tourist activity (Wikipedia, 2012).
The UNWTO (1999, 2007) has established that the tourist destination represents the basic unit of analysis in tourism and recognizes three perspectives for its understanding: geographical (an easily recognizable area with geographical or administrative limits that tourists visit and in which they remain during their trip), the economic (the place where they stay the longest, where they spend a relevant sum of money and where the income from tourism is considerable, or potentially considerable, for the economy), and the psychographic (which is the main reason for the trip). Also, the destination is served by the public and private sectors, and can be an entire country, a region, an island, a village or city, a center or independent attraction.
In general, the tourist destination is conceived as an independently identifiable area, which is promoted as a place that tourists can visit and where one or more government agencies or organizations coordinate the tourism product it offers (European Communities, 2002).
For Bigné et al. (2000: 30) "Destinations are combinations of tourism products that offer an integrated experience to tourists." These authors consider the tourist destination "as an area that presents characteristics recognized by potential visitors, which justify its consideration as an entity and attract trips to it, regardless of the attractions that exist in other areas" (Bigné et al., 2000: 30); which implies the following three fundamental elements:
- The tourist destination as a unit or system that encompasses various tourist resources and infrastructures The tourist destination may or may not coincide with the administrative limits in question The tourist perceives their vacations as a global experience that is made up of a chain of products and services that need to be integrated based on your satisfaction.
It must be said that these notions about the tourist destination dominated the entire initial decade of the 21st century and continue to be projected as mandatory references during the present. In them are present the ideas of totality and centrality of destinations, where considering how tourism resources and services are related to each other, their level of concentration and what they mean for tourists is decisive.
There are many other meanings of the term “destination” from the perspectives of sociology, marketing or management, and their identification may vary according to the multiplicity of agents (potential and actual tourism demand, local private tourism activities, public agents, non-tourism activities local, host community) and perceptions (Manente, 2008).
In the particular case of marketing, beyond the strong link with the territorial enclave in which the destination is specified, this is considered something more than a mere geographical location seen from the demand side. In the opinion of Keller (2000), “Tourists perceive a destination or the service provided in the context of a destination, as a whole. Frequently, the set of services provided cannot be separated from the geographical location. Therefore, the destination and the product are identical ”.
Beyond space, the destination can be perceived as a product and a system. If this perspective initiated by marketing does not reject the spatial dimension of the term, it nevertheless adopts a different angle of reading geography, notably through the life cycle model of tourist spaces developed by geographer Richard Butler in 1980. Long criticized, above all because of its generic nature, this model remains, however, the most widely used to evaluate the performance of a tourist destination (Boualem et al., 2011).
According to the author, the most complete marketing approach among the different conceptions of destination is provided by Valls (2000), which highlights essential elements such as administrative capacity and centrality and even introduces a key aspect in marketing such as brand.
But the concept of destination also comes from the supply side, and in particular, from the resources and identity of the local community. From this angle of analysis, Manente and Minghetti (2006), consider that it can be defined according to two different perspectives:
- As a tourist place in which tourist activities have been developed and in which, therefore, tourist products are produced and consumed As a tourist product and, therefore, as a specific offer that includes a set of resources, activities and agents of a territory, as well as the local community.
For these authors, the fact that the concept of tourist destination ceases to be understood as a "tourist place" to be considered a "tourist product", or better yet, a product system, depends on the agents involved.
However, for Padurean (2010) the concept of tourist destination is not traditionally a construct from the supply side; rather, he understands it “as the location of production of the tourist experience. The role of suppliers is to produce the appropriate components for consumption and the role of governance is to fine-tune the appropriate mechanisms that ensure the efficiency of the system ”(Padurean, 2010: 9).
Following other points of view, there are also concepts that assume destinations as entities beyond certain political-administrative limits and advance criteria related to collaboration between destinations and the formation of networks of relationships around a "center of gravity" or polo (OMT, 2005; Manente, 2008).
According to Boualem, Reda and Bondarenko (2011) the most elaborate definition of the term “destination” is given by the Encyclopedia of Tourism (Jafari, 2000). It incorporates very interesting features such as the concept of the circuit as a set of multi-destinations and the so-called destination in motion, the classic example of which is the cruise (Halloway, cited by Bull, 1994).
In general, destinations are artificially divided by geographical and political barriers, which sometimes cause confusion for consumers (Perelló, 2002). “However, it is increasingly recognized that a destination can be a perceived concept, that is, it can be subjectively interpreted by consumers, based on their travel itinerary, cultural background, reason for the visit, level of education and experience. prev ”(Bigné et al., 2000: 30).
Hence, the tourist destination can also be understood as a mixture between the images that it reflects on its visitors (experiences, experiences, memories) and the images created by tourism professionals and the media.
For Duval (2010), the tourist destination appears then as a social creation that does not cease to be renewed, halfway between the effects of a staging by the tourist actors and the processes of appropriation / transformation by the tourists. tourists with a view to satisfying their desires for a new creation, thus playing a role as a mobile and complex space, necessarily dynamic.
Therefore, if the characteristic displacement of the tourist practice is taken as the implementation of a “recreation project”, the destination is considered by Botti et al. (2008, cited by Boualem et al., 2011: 23) “as a system in which numerous organizations that belong to the same branch of activity or to different branches of activities interact”.
The hypothesis of Boualem et al. (2011) is that the destination is presented as a dynamic set of projects conceived as intentional and interested efforts of the actors involved in its construction. These projects, at the same time differentiated but concurrent with the formation of an integrated project, are reflected in different dimensions, which are distinguished as five projects organically linked between them: an anthropological project (vision of the leaders, motivation of tourists), a project economic (market, tourism product), a refurbishment project (enhancement of spaces for tourism), a management project (organization and governance mechanism) and an urban project (social project).
The so-called "Consensus of St. Gallen" (which emanated from the International Conference on Tourist Destinations held in that Swiss city in 2012), sought to harmonize the conceptual and methodological criteria about tourist destinations and their management. In the final communication of the conference it is stated that:
“Destinations can be understood as geographic entities, a cluster or (latent) network of providers; or additionally, as a network of providers activated by the demands of visitors. " (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013: 47)
It is concluded that depending on the scope of analysis, the concept of destination is a well differentiated “construct” in two planes (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013):
- With regard to planning, development and negotiation as a fundamental object, the destination can be understood from a supply point of view, and is therefore a local spatial construct, with an inward orientation. With respect to marketing and coordination of services as a fundamental reason, the destination can be understood from a demand point of view, and is therefore a construct of global interest / business field, with an outward orientation.
The existence of dissimilar ways of conceptualizing the tourist destination affects, of course, the criteria for its classification and typologies that are derived from these, finding a wide and varied range. Thus, the different classifications may have a greater emphasis on the geographical location and resources of the site, on the organization and concentration of tourist activities, or take into account the multiple travel motivations of tourists. Annex 2 is illustrative of the diversity of criteria that have been taken into account to classify destinations. From the analysis of the consulted typologies (Bigné et al., 2000; Buhalis, 2000, cited by Bigné et al., 2000; Rey, 2004; Alonso, 2007; Santos, 2007; Bédard, 2008) the following is generalized:
- There are urban and non-urban destinations. Central and peripheral destinations are recognized. The specialization or classification is mainly based on the tourist vocation, that is, the possibilities for practicing a more specific type of tourism.
For the author, the classification given by Bigné et al. (2000) is the most accurate, since in addition to the elements indicated, it does not leave out other aspects that define the concept of destination, such as, for example, the recognition of the existence of unique destinations (such as a cruise or an island) or the so-called multi-destination (circuit, route), which is currently a fairly common way of marketing tourist packages on a global scale.
2. Overview of destination management
To understand the principles of management and institutional organization of tourist destinations, it is necessary to first be clear about the nature of the tourist activity to which they must adapt. The nature of tourist activity, like all economic activity, can be analyzed from two points of view: that of supply and that of demand. To the extent that their confluence in the market occurs harmoniously, efficiency will be achieved.
The aforementioned Consensus of St. Gallen establishes that the management of tourist destinations includes the following spheres of activity: planning (within the spheres related to tourism), negotiation (on behalf of all tour operators), marketing (in a way understandable - that is, product, price, at least some extension in terms of promotion and distribution), and service coordination (aimed at creating a homogeneous consumer experience). Depending on the specific context of destination management, a rich variety of institutional and regulatory agents may exist, in which the execution of the aforementioned spheres of activity occurs.
When talking about destination management and, more specifically, destination management models, the question of the so-called governance of the destination is generally addressed, as well as collaboration, taking into account the diversity of actors that are involved in the tourist activity. According to Sautter & Leisen (1999, cited by Padurean, 2010: 60) “Destinations are some of the most difficult entities to manage and market, due to the complexity of the relationships of local actors”.
The traditional governance model of a tourist destination is represented by Destination Management / Marketing Organizations (OGD / OMD), “the entity that brings together various authorities, shareholders and professionals and / or facilitates alliances in the tourism industry towards a vision of collective destiny ”(OMT, 2010). The UNWTO categorizes DMO / DMO into three levels: a national level, a regional level and a local level. At the national level, the National Tourism Organization (ONT) or National Tourism Authority (ANT) guides the general strategic directions of the country's tourism industry and is responsible for communicating the country's image. All of these levels are responsible for strategy plus research and development for their field.
There is a variety of OGD structures, “without a universally accepted model” (Padurean, 2010: 62).
Territorial tourism management bodies have become responsible for tourism planning and development, in everything that affects the product and its quality and competitiveness (ROS, 2008); of the creation of products, the promotion and support to the commercialization, as well as the tourist information that is provided in them. This type of body responds in a more appropriate way to the general objectives and challenges faced by tourism (Ejarque, 2005).
In common practice, a DMO is seen more as a Destination Marketing Organization (DMO), but depending on the institutional and regulatory context, that is, the scope and competencies of its role, a DMO can sometimes be considered as DMO (Laesser & Beritelli, 2013). Other authors (Sheehan, 2006; Padurean, 2010) share this idea and place it as the essential “teacher” within the system that is destiny, as “the most central and most connected actor on the web” (Sheehan, 2006: 48).
In tourism as such, the governance role is carried out from a traditional public sector model (OMT, 2010), although in recent times there has been “a rapid transition from a traditional public model to a public-private partnership” (Padurean, 2010: 64). Precisely, Bédard and Boualem (2012) highlight among the success factors of a destination management system “the importance and quality of a partnership between the public and private sectors” (Bédard and Boualem, 2012: 20), so that balanced strategies are achieved that represent the wishes of the destination in a globalized and competitive market (Medaglia and Silveira, 2009).
That is why the aspect of the actors involved has deserved much attention in the literature, which according to Merinero (2009) responds to the emergence and application of theories such as that of local production systems and that of stakeholders. Manente (2008), argues that: "An effective and efficient management will depend on a thorough knowledge of the real and potential demand, of the agents involved in the tourist offer, and of the economic relations between the agents" (Manente, 2008: 3). To which we must add that these relationships are not only economic, but above all bureaucratic and institutional, dependent on the organizational, normative, legal and power relations structure.
In a general way, there has been an agreement to recognize as the main actors involved in the tourist destination the public and private sectors, non-profit organizations, the media, tourists and the host community (Manente, 2008; Buhalis, 2000, cited by Bigné et al, 2000; Perelló, 2002; Falcón, 2004, cited by Betancourt et al., 2007; Del Chiappa, 2012; Presenza, Del Chiappa & Sheehan, 2013; March & Wilkinson, 2009; Moscardo, 2011).
For his part, Bédard (2008), in a particularly interesting distinction, conceives the local tourism system as a set of actors / agents that he classifies as direct and indirect. Direct are those whose activity contributes to the development of the destination and as a return they benefit from it (they are essentially the tour operators), while indirect are the organizations or individuals who, without being directly involved in the tourism activity, are impacted by its results (such as tourists, governments, universities, the media and the local population of the destination).
The introduction of a DMO is increasingly seen as an effective way to achieve collaboration between the various components that shape the destination, as well as a vehicle for collaboration with other destinations (Fyall, Garrod & Wang, 2012).
3. Analysis of destination management models
In order to achieve an integrative vision of the tourist destination management process as an essential analytical unit of tourism and to enter into the analysis of the models that try to explain it, it is essential to analyze the tourism phenomenon in a more general way, based on the models that describe its functional structure according to the postulates of Von Bertalanffy's General Theory of Systems.
The maximum support for the systemic approach is provided by the use of models. The models, as representations of reality, in this case tourism, have essential features and combine the main invariants of the phenomenon studied. Martín (2006) has identified four large groups of tourism models: structural - functional models, demand models, destination development models and impact models. Due to its relation to this thesis, it is interesting to refer to the structural - functional models (see annex 6) and those of destination development (see annex 3).
Among the basic models is Leiper's from 1979), adapted in 1990 and later assumed as a theoretical reference from that decade, since "it managed to focus attention on the concept of tourist flow (outbound travelers and return travelers)" (Martín, 2006: 19). It explains tourism as a relationship of exchange between regions that generate (issuing) travelers and regions of tourist destination (receiving), through regions of transit en route where the components of the tourism industry are located.
Shortly before Miossec (1977, cited by Martín, 2006) presented the interactions of four elements in the process of developing a destination:
- The destination itself and its characteristics The role of transport Patterns of behavior of tourists Attitudes of decision makers and residents of the destination
Other models are that of Mill & Morrison (2002) and that of McKercher & Wong (2004). The first represents a broad model of the relationship system in tourism, where the sectors and fundamental parts that intervene in the tourism system and their interrelationships are identified. Above all, it constitutes an accurate vision of the endogenous subsystem of tourism, but “it lacks a holistic vision, since there is another set of aspects that influence and, on occasions, determine the development of tourist flows and that should not be neglected at the time of define the scope of the tourism system ”(Martín, 2006: 20).
For his part, McKercher provided a model based on the theory of chaos, which attempts to explain the different interactions between the various components that reflect the functioning of tourism, although it also lacks integrality since it derives above all towards the sociological aspects of the tourism phenomenon (Martin, 2006), ignoring other key elements.
Finally, the so-called Pentagonal Model of the Tourist System appears (Martín, 2006), which tries to solve the insufficiencies of the previous models based on a multisystemic conception of tourism, by making large subdivisions of it into: endogenous or properly tourist subsystem, exogenous subsystem or tourist environment and macro environment or general environment. The elements of the endogenous and exogenous subsystems and their links make up the "content" of the tourism phenomenon, inserted in a process of interrelations with the macroenvironment that it calls "tourism dynamics", "tourism operation" or "tourism process", which leads to results or "impacts" (Martín, 2006: 23).
Theoretical models of tourist destinations oriented towards competitiveness
The models discussed here do not have an explicit name as management models, however, in almost all of them the notion of destination system is revealed and the variables "competitiveness" and "sustainability" are recurrent, in a one-to-one relationship or more than anything interdependent.
Among them is the so-called Model of the Integrated Interfunctional System of Competitiveness in Tourist Destinations (SIIC) of Toledo, Valdés and Polero (1998), formed by five factors and their interrelations within the tourism system. These authors consider the tourism system as an open homeostatic system with equifinality according to the General Systems Theory, in which the critical mass and the nature of the demand create the basic conditions for the development of the tourism cluster, based on the implementation of strategies competitive, cooperative and customer relations. The marketing approach in the conception of the model is evident, especially in relation to relationship marketing, as well as the importance of collaboration. The definition of the basic factors that determine the so-called critical mass,These are: tourist, human, capital, infrastructure, knowledge, superstructure and security resources, suggest it more applicable to country destinations.
The second model to analyze is the Conceptual Model of Competitiveness and Sustainability for Tourist Destinations, developed by Ritchie and Crouch in 1999 and perfected in 2003, which is considered one of the most influential theoretical models in recent years.
Known as the Calgary Model, there are recurrent ideas about the tourism system as an open system, the marketing approach in the analysis of the competitive environment (actually it is not far from the useful analysis of Porter's five forces model) and the transversality of tourist activity in the interconnection of different value chains.
Ritchie and Crouch (2003) propose in their model that the comparative advantages of the destination arise from the resources that make it attractive to visitors, thus constituting the central element of its value proposition, which includes both natural resources and those created. by the action of man due to reasons that, a priori, do not have a direct link with tourism, such as culture, artistic heritage or infrastructure. On the other hand, competitive advantages are closely linked to the destination's ability to use these resources efficiently in the long term, thus making it sustainable over time.
From there, they classify the factors that affect the competitiveness of the destination in seven main areas that make up its value chain: a) internal: secondary resources and attractions; main resources and attractions; destination management; destination planning, development and policies; qualifying and amplifying elements; and b) external: competitive environment (macroeconomic) and competitive environment (microeconomic).
Within the nuclear resources and attractions that it defines, this model takes from other models the variable connectivity between origin and destination (“market ties”) and includes the variable special events as a determinant of competitiveness that “represents a distinctive extension of what they call it a mix of activities ”(Ritchie & Crouch, 2010: 1056).
An indisputable contribution is the definition of the "qualifying and amplifying determinants" of the destination, among which the variable interdependencies between destinations is proposed, meaning that "the competitiveness of any destination is affected by the competitiveness of other destinations" (Ritchie & Crouch, 2010: 1065). This is also how the economic analysis of the cost / value relationship is presented, which is very important for demand studies.
Finally, it is unavoidable to analyze within the framework of conceptual models on destinations, the Integrated Model of Competitiveness of Tourist Destination by Dwyer and Kim (2003). These authors recognize three explanatory factors of the competitiveness of the destination: the inherited resources, the created resources and the support resources. The model, in addition to resources, is made up of situational conditions, destination management and demand. The set of these factors and their interrelation with the environment lead to reach the competitiveness of the destination, whose final objective is to improve the standard of living and well-being of the residents (Dwyer and Kim, 2002, 2003). Other developments are also presented in the literature, more than theoretical, methodological, generically called "models",that point towards a measurement of the competitiveness of destinations, especially to attempt comparisons between countries and establish rankings based on specific indicators (Genest and Legg, 2003; Bravo, 2004; Flores and Barroso, 2009; Garau, 2006; Gooroochurn and
Sugiyarto, 2005; Hong, 2009; Mazaro, 2007; Navickas and Malakauskaite, 2009; Sánchez and Fajardo, 2004), not precisely with an approach that determines the weight of tourist activity in local development.
Practical destination management model
From an empirical point of view, management models for local tourist destinations have been described for the Spanish case (see Annex 4). Its explicit purposes entail "greater involvement and co-responsibility on the part of the private sector to respond to the growing competitiveness between tourist destinations" (ROS, 2008: 1), which is why they focus on changes in management methods and forms of financing, traditionally more public.
When allusion is made to these Spanish “municipal tourism management models”, one starts from the high significance that tourism has for the municipality and the following analysis determinants are assumed: 1) the existence of a municipal tourism management entity or body, 2) with some legal or institutional formula, whether public or private law (council, patronage, consortium, foundation, convention bureau, municipal company, private company, etc.), 3) the development of functions inherent to the activity (promotion, tourism information and planning, among others), 4) an organizational model that is also expressed in a representation or participation body, 5) management instruments and 6) a financing system.
The following table presents a synthesis of the diversity of existing models (modalities) based on the formula applied according to the legal category.
Table 1. Synthesis of municipal tourism management modalities in Spain.
| Not. | Formula | Legal category | Modalities |
| one | Integrated in the municipal Administration itself (without other Entities) | Public Law | Town hall
Own or shared council Area, Service or Department |
| two | Organism or Entity
municipal autonomous |
Public Law | Municipal Board
Municipal institute Public Foundation |
| 3 | Consortium | Public Law | Mixed Audiences |
| 4 | Commercial society | Private right | Mixed Publics |
| 5 | Foundation | Private right | Mixed private |
| 6 | civil association | Private right | Private |
Source: self made.
These management modalities represent valid approximations for the cases of localities where tourism is considered as a strategic sector, by proposing solutions to integrate the management of tourism to the management of the municipality from the legal-administrative, organizational and financial points of view. These are formulas of organizations or entities for the management and promotion of tourist destinations limited to the local sphere understood as municipality.
In order to put into practice a destination management model, it is essential to assume that the destination is a system, and “define and understand its agents, their connections, their interactions and their competitive environment” (Manente, 2008: 7). But more than understanding the dynamics of the agents, it is necessary to assess the weight and place that corresponds to each one within the system, their powers of negotiation and decision.
Starting from defining the entity, establishing its legal and institutional formula most suitable for the locality and identifying the powers and functions of the agency, it is possible to approach the rest of the elements listed as components of this municipal tourism management system, as well as agree on the frameworks of action and organizational values and implement basic planning and management tools (strategies, programs, projects, business plans, scorecard, etc.).
Following Bédard (2008), it is considered that a destination management model should create strategies and disseminate the know-how and good practices that help tourist destinations achieve excellence, in a way that reinforces their competitiveness, encourages the sustainable development of tourism and maximize its social and economic benefits for local communities, improve the quality of the services proposed and experiences offered, and apply the concept of geotourism defined as the enhancement of the geographic originality of a site, namely, its environment, its culture, its aesthetics, its heritage and the well-being of its inhabitants.
For Manente (2008) the determining elements of an effective management of tourist destinations are the organization of local resources, the coordination and management of local tourism production, the management and control of relations between agents, market segmentation and product chains and, finally, the creation and management of the value produced by the tourism system for all the agents involved.
Conclusions
The concept of destination is complex and its definition is very varied depending on the criteria that are assumed for its analysis, with meanings from the perspectives of sociology, marketing or management.
The following criteria were identified as more representative: destination as a delimited geographic zone, area, site or location; destination as a center of tourism production, that is, as the confluence between supply and demand or space where the tourist experience takes place; destination as a system, cluster, development pole or supplier network depending on the tourist activity; destination as a circuit or multi-destination; destination as an image perceived or created by travelers, tourism experts and the media; destination as a travel motivator; destination as a mobile space; and destination as an integrated project.
The existence of dissimilar ways of conceptualizing the tourist destination also affects the diversity of criteria for its classification and typologies that are derived from these, although in general the classifications may have a greater emphasis on either the geographical location and the resources of the site.; on the organization and concentration of tourist activities, or taking into account the multiple travel motivations of tourists.
Destination management addresses the so-called destination governance, as well as collaboration, taking into account the diversity of actors involved in tourism activity. This governance is generally based on the traditional model of DMOs / OMDs, which are concretized in practice in management models or modalities that take into account the interrelation between the variables “competitiveness” and “sustainability”.
Bibliography
- Acerenza, M. Á. 2003. Marketing management of tourist destinations in today's competitive environment. Contributions and Transfers, Year 7, II, pp. 43-56 National University of Mar del Plata, Argentina. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/276/27670204.pdf Bédard, F. "Le développement d'un outil de mesure de l'excellence des destinations touristiques", Téoros, 27-1 - 2008. Available at: http://teoros.revues.org/1606. Accessed September 21, 2012 Bedard, F. and Boualem, "Les technologies de l'information comme facteur d'autonomie des destinations touristiques du Sud", Teoros, 23-2 - 2004. Available at: http: // teoros. revues.org/702. Accessed September 21, 2012 Boualem Kadri, Mohamed Reda Khomsi and Maria Bondarenko, «Le concept de destination», Téoros, 30 - 1 - 2011, mis online on April 25, 2013, consulted on January 31, 2014. URL: http: //teoros.revues.org/1229.Bigné Alcañiz, JE; Font Aulet, X.; Andreu Simó, L. 2000. Marketing of Tourist Destinations: Analysis and Development Strategies. ESIC Editorial, 543 p. Bull, A. (1994). The economy of the tourism sector. Alianza Editorial, SA: Madrid, European Communities. 2002. Rapid alert system to detect declining tourist destinations and their best prevention practices. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 72 p. Dieguez Castrillón, I.; Gueimonde Canto, A.; Sinde Cantorna, A. and Blanco Cerradelo, L. Analysis of the main explanatory models of the competitiveness of tourist destinations within the framework of sustainability. CULTUR, Year 05, No. 02, Aug./2011. Available at: http://www.uesc.br/revistas/culturaeturismoDuval, M. (2010). Lecture croisée: Géographie et destinations touristiques. Available at:Fabry N., 2009, «Clusters de tourisme et compétitivité des acteurs. Is it a solution for comforting the Parisian tourism and events? »In Destinations et territories, Coprésence à l'œuvre, sous la direction de Jean-Pierre Lemasson and Philippe Violier, pp. 55-68. Fyall, A., Garrod, B. & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Critical Review, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 10–26: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm.García Hernández, M. (2007) «Tourist planning and management entities on a local scale. The Case of the World Heritage Cities of Spain ». Tourism Notebooks 20: 9102.Getz, D.; Anderson, D.; Sheeman, L. (1998) «Roles, issues,and strategies for convention and visitors' bureau in destination planning and product development: a survey of Canadian bureau. Tourism Management 19 (4): 331-340. Gómez, G.; Torres, CC and Menoya, S. (2012). Tourism as an alternative for local development. Case study: Pinar del Río, Cuba. Paper presented at the 6th International Congress of the Mexican Academy of Tourism Research, Colima, México.Laesser, C. & Beritelli, P. (2013). Gallen Consensus on Destination Management. Conference Communication, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 46–49:Paper presented at the 6th International Congress of the Mexican Academy of Tourism Research, Colima, México.Laesser, C. & Beritelli, P. (2013). Gallen Consensus on Destination Management. Conference Communication, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 46–49:Paper presented at the 6th International Congress of the Mexican Academy of Tourism Research, Colima, México.Laesser, C. & Beritelli, P. (2013). Gallen Consensus on Destination Management. Conference Communication, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 46–49:http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm.Manente, M. 2008. Destination management and economic background: definition and supervision of local tourist destinations. Main document, Session 4: Management of Tourist Destinations, International Tourism Conference, Malaga, Spain, October 29-31, Marsat J.-B. et al., 2009, «Le management territorialisé du tourisme rural. Des teachings from the Porta Natura program, "in Destinations et Territoires, Coprésence à l'œuvre, sous la direction de Jean-Pierre Lemasson and Philippe Violier, pp.168-177. Martín, R. (2006). Principles, organization and practice of tourism. Volume 1. Center for Tourism Studies, University of Havana. Digital support, 134 pp. Mazaro, RM and Varzin, G. 2008. Competitiveness models for tourist destinations within the framework of sustainability. Journal of Contemporary Administration, July-September, Vol.12 No. 3, Curitiba, Brazil, pp. 789-809. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/840/84012309.pdfMedaglia Silveira, J.; Silveira, CE The evolution of destination marketing. Its synergy with tourism planning. Studies and perspectives in tourism on-line version ISSN 1851-1732 18 n. 5, Buenos Aires Sep./oct. 2009 Molés, VJ and Vilasaló, E. (1996). Glossary of tourist terms. In: Pedreño, A. and Monfort, V. (eds.). Introduction to the economy of tourism in Spain, Editorial Civitas SA: Madrid.Padurean, L. (2010). Dynamic destinations. A management and governance perspective. Thesis in option of the scientific degree of Ph.D. in Economics, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, 144p. Presenza, A., Del Chiappa, G. & Sheehan, L. (2013).Residents' engagement and local tourism governance in maturing beach destinations. Evidence from an Italian case study. Research Paper, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 22–30:http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm. Ritchie, JRB & Crouch, GI 2010. A model of destination competitiveness / sustainability: Brazilian perspectives. Revista de Administração Pública, vol. 44, no. 5, September-October, 2010, pp. 1049-1066, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available at: http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=241016587003.ROS Development & Planning SL (2008). “Models of local tourism management. Principles and practices. " Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces - General Secretariat of Tourism, Madrid.Royo Vela, M. and Serarols Tarrés, C. 2005. Rural-cultural tourism: a management model for tourism marketing at a local level based on image measurement of destiny. Tourism Notebooks (online), July-December, No. 16, University of Murcia, Spain, pp. 197-222. Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=39801611 Sánchez, M. and Fajardo, MA (2004). The competitiveness of tourist destinations: a quantitative analysis using logistics models. Application to Extremadura municipalities. Department of Applied Economics and Business Organization, University of Extremadura, Spain. Santos, GE 2007. Theoretical models applied to tourism.Studies and perspectives in tourism On-line version ISSN 1851-1732 Estud. perspect. tur. vol.16 n.1 Autonomous City of Buenos Aires Jan./Mar. 2007.Sheehan, LR 2006. Destination Management Organizations: A Stakeholder Perspective. Doctoral Thesis, University of Calgary, Alberta, 188 pp.
Annexes
Annex 1. Concepts of tourist destination.
| Not. | Authors | Concepts |
| one | Kye-Sung, 1990;
Etchner and Ritchie, 1991; Stabler, 1988; Telisman-Kosuta, 1989; Gallarza et al., 2002, cited by Boualem et al. (2011) |
They define the destination based on the image it reflects on its visitors. It is from this perspective that the destination can be considered as a place, a town, a city, a region, a country or an area. |
| two | Bieger (1992,
cited by Manente, 2008) |
"Areas that consist of all the services and offers that tourists consume during their stay" |
| 3 | Bull, A. (1994: 47-48) | A destination can be a single location, a collection of locations as part of a tour, or even a “mobile” destination such as a cruise ship. |
| 4 | Molés and Vilasaló (1996: 428) | Receiving nucleus of tourist flows, endowed with tourist offer and resources that give it certain attractions for tourist demand. |
| 5 | Tocquer and Zins (1999, cited by Boualem et al., 2011) | They define the destination as a type of tourism products and services issued by numerous private and public operators. |
| 6 | OMT (1999, 2007) | “It is an important place visited by tourists that represents the basic unit of analysis in tourism. Three perspectives are recognized: geographical (an easily recognizable area with geographical or administrative limits that tourists visit and in which they stay during their trip), economic (the place where they stay the longest, where they spend a relevant sum of money and in which the income from tourism is considerable, or potentially considerable, for the economy), and the psychographic (which constitutes the main reason for the trip). Also, the destination is served by the public and private sectors, and can be an entire country, a region, an island, a village or a city, or a separate center or attraction. |
| 7 | Tourism Encyclopedia
(Jafari, 2000, cited by Boualem et al., 2011: 13) |
“Destination, as something other than origin or market, refers to a place where tourists intend to spend their time away from their residence. This geographical unit visited by tourists can be a specific place, a town or a city, a region or an island, or a country. Furthermore, a destination can be a simple location, a set of multi-destinations as part of a circuit, or even a moving destination such as a cruise ship. " |
| 8 | Valls (2000) | "Determined geographical space, with its own characteristics of climate, roots, infrastructures and services, and with a certain administrative capacity to develop common planning instruments, which acquires centrality by attracting tourists through perfectly structured products adapted to the desired satisfactions, thanks to the setting in value and arrangement of the available attractions; endowed with a brand and which is marketed taking into account its integral nature. " |
| 9 | Bigné et al. (2000: 30) | “Destinations are combinations of tourism products that offer an integrated experience to tourists. Traditionally, destinations were viewed as a geographically well-defined area, such as a country, an island, or a city. However, it is increasingly recognized that a destination can be a perceived concept, that is, it can be subjectively interpreted by consumers, based on their travel itinerary, cultural background, reason for the visit, level of education and previous experience.. "
"… an area that presents characteristics recognized by potential visitors, which justify its consideration as an entity and attract trips to it, regardless of the attractions that exist in other areas." |
| 10 | Lanquar (2001) | "The tourist destination is a territorial entity with or without legal personality, which forms a system, encompassing its tourist resources and infrastructures." |
| eleven | European Communities (2002: 67) | An area that is independently identified, is promoted as a place that tourists can visit and in which one or more government agencies or organizations coordinate the tourism product it offers. |
| 12 | Davidson and Maitland (2002) | They consider the destination as a place of production of tourist products that focus the attention and motivations of visitors. |
| 13 | OMT (2005: 10) | “The destination is a physical space in which the visitor spends at least one night. It includes tourist products such as support services and tourist attractions and resources in a radius that allows to go and return in the day. It has physical and administrative limits that define its management and images and perceptions that determine its competitiveness in the market. Local destinations incorporate diverse groups, often including the host community, and can establish ties and networks with each other to constitute larger destinations. |
| 14 | Ejarque (2005) | The tourist destination is a complex system that is made up of four fundamental elements: |
| • The local economy, generated by the activities of the companies, by the labor market and by productive activity.
• Society, people and residents living in the destination. • The nature of the destination and the tourist resources, understanding with this not only the tourist attraction based on the existence of enclaves and natural places of great beauty, but also the urban spaces that are adequately preserved, built in a balanced, clean and orderly manner. • The notoriety and quality of the destination. |
||
| fifteen | Manente and Minghetti (2006) | It can be defined according to two different perspectives:
3. As a tourist place in which tourist activities have been developed and in which, therefore, tourist products are produced and consumed. 4. As a tourist product and, consequently, as a specific offer that includes a set of resources, activities and agents of a territory, as well as the local community. |
| 16 | Botti et al. (2008,
cited by Boualem et al., 2011: 23) |
"As a system in which numerous organizations that belong to the same branch of activity or to different branches of activities interact". |
| 17 | Manente (2008) | A destination is characterized by a main center (pole) and by a group of municipalities around it that play a secondary role, establishing between them a multidimensional relationship around the integrated set of resources, agents and activities that define the space-destination and which can be located in one of the municipalities or be shared by several of them. This pole or center must therefore be capable of stimulating the development of the nearby area based on common interests and functional interactions. |
| 18 | Duval (2010) | The tourist destination can also be understood as a mix between the images produced by tourists (experiences, experiences, memories) and the images created by tourism professionals and the media. (…) As a social creation that continues to be renewed, halfway between the effects of a staging by tourist actors and the appropriation / transformation processes by tourists with a view to satisfying their desires newly created. In this way, the destination plays a role as a mobile and complex space, necessarily dynamic. |
| 19 | Padurean (2010: 9) | "As the location of production of the experience |
| tour. The role of providers is to produce the appropriate components for consumption and the role of governance is to set up the ideal mechanisms that ensure the efficiency of the system ”. | ||
| twenty | Boualem et al. (2011) | As a dynamic set of projects conceived as intentional and interested efforts of the actors involved in its construction. These projects, at the same time differentiated but concurrent with the formation of an integrated project, are reflected in different dimensions, which are distinguished as five projects organically linked between them: an anthropological project (vision of the leaders, motivation of the tourists), a project economic (market, tourist product), a refurbishment project (enhancement for tourism of spaces), a management project (organization and governance mechanism) and an urban project (social project) |
| twenty-one | Free Encyclopedia Wikipedia (2012) | “Zone or geographic area located in a distant place and that is visited by tourists, has limits of physical nature, political context and perception by the market. From the business point of view, both strategic and organizational, the perimeter of the destination is made up of the relationships that are built between the set of productive units that participate in tourist activity ”. |
| 22 | Laesser & Beritelli (2013: 47) | “Destinations can be understood as geographic entities, a cluster or (latent) network of providers; or additionally, as a network of providers activated by the demands of visitors. In essence, there are productive social systems with specific business objectives and goals not associated with business. " |
Source: self made.
Annex 2. Classification of tourist destinations.
| Not. | Authors | Criteria | Types | |
| one | Law 3/1998,
Community Tourism Law Valencian |
According to the number of visitors a population receives and its capacity to
accommodation (tourist municipalities) |
1. Tourist destination: Those that throughout the year maintain an influx of visitors, spending the night in them, greater than the number of people registered in their municipal register of residents, assuming this activity the basis of their economy and in which the capacity of your tourist accommodation is higher than that of your primary residence.
2. Holiday destination: Those who at some time of the year have an influx of visitors, staying overnight in them, greater than the number of people registered in their municipal register of residents, being able to have other activities as a complement to their economy and that the ability to their tourist accommodation, added to that of second residence dwellings, is higher than that of their first residence dwellings, in said calculation, the number of places in tourist accommodation must represent at least one percent of their offer. 3. Destination of tourist attraction: Those who, due to their natural, monumental, socio-cultural attractions or due to their relevance in a specific tourist market, receive at a certain time of the year a significant number of visitors in relation to their population by law, without the They necessarily spend the night in them. |
|
| two | Bigné et al.
(2000) |
According to the distribution of resources and their use by
tourists |
1. Unique destination. In this case, the visited destination has various activities to do and tourists may not want to visit another place.
2. Destination as headquarters and visit to the surroundings. The tourist travels to a specific destination, which will be the "center of operations", and from which short visits to other places will be made. 3. Circuit. Some tourists travel to a destination and instead of taking a central headquarters, they decide to see different places by moving from one to another, instead of always returning to the same center. |
|
| 4. Travel en route. It involves a vacation with multiple stops, but not all to the same specific destination. | |||
| 3
|
Buhalis (2000, cited by Bigné et al., 2000) | According to its attractiveness
principal |
1. Urban destinations.
2. Beach destinations and tourist complexes. 3. Mountain destinations. 4. Rural destinations. 5. Unexplored destinations. 6. Unique, exotic and exclusive destinations. |
| 4 | King (2004) and
Alonso (2007) |
According to your cycle
lifetime |
1. Emerging.
2. Developed. 3. Consolidated. 4. Stagnant. 5. In decline. |
| According to its attractiveness
principal |
1. Sun and beach.
2. Of nature. 3. Cultural. 4. Anthropological. 5. Urban. 6. Sports (active or passive). 7. Health. 8. Religious. 9. Commercial and business. 10. Fun. |
||
| According to your geographical location | 1. Urban.
2. From the coast. 3. Mountain. 4. Rural. 5. Unexplored. |
||
| 5 | Santos (2007) | Combination between emission-ratio
tourist reception, centrality geographic and attributes of the place |
1. Metropolitan destinations: central location, highly populated, with large outbound and receptive tourist flows connected to international and transcontinental transport networks.
2. Peripheral urban destinations: less importance in regional centralization, medium population and greater tendency to receive than to emit tourists. 3. Peripheral rural destinations: dependence on regional centers, small population, considerable landscape attributes, small output of tourists and possibly significant reception. 4. Destinations of natural environment: totally dependent on regional centers, population not significant, great distance from |
| the generating areas, practically zero emission and possibly considerable reception. | |||
| 6 | Bédard (2008) | Combination of geographic location with main attraction | 1. Urban. 2. Coasts.
3. Mountain and rural. 4. Of nature and adventure. |
Source: self made.
Annex 3. Representative models of the tourist phenomenon.
| Not. | Authors and year | Model type | General characterization of the model | Components included |
| one | Miossec (1977, cited by Martín, 2006) | Tourism destination development model | • The destination itself and its characteristics.
• The role of transport. • Patterns of behavior of tourists. • Attitudes of decision makers and residents of the destination. |
|
| two | Leiper (1979, 1990) | Structural-functional model | It explains tourism as a relationship of exchange between regions that generate (issuing) travelers and regions of tourist destination (receiving), through regions of transit en route where the components of the tourism industry are located. | • region generating travelers,
• en-route transit region (location of outbound and return travelers, tourists, and the tourism and travel industry), • environments: human, sociocultural, economic, technological, physical, political, legal, etc. |
| 3 | Mill & Morrison (2002) | Structural-functional model | It represents a broad model of the system of relationships in tourism, where the sectors and fundamental parts that intervene in the tourism system and their interrelations are identified. | Part 1 - Destination,
Part 2 - Marketing, Part 3 - Demand and Part 4 - Travel. Link 12: Tourist product, Link 23: Travel promotion, Link 14: Travel form, Link 34: Purchase of the trip. |
| 4 | McKercher & Wong (2004) | Structural-functional model | Model based on chaos theory, which attempts to explain the different interactions between the various components that reflect the functioning of tourism. | • traveler,
• means of communication between the destination and the traveler, • factors of influence and effectiveness of these means of communication, |
| • the tourist destination,
• external agencies that intervene and influence tourism; • aspects of the external environment, • the actions that cause changes in the dynamics of tourism and the impacts (positive and negative) that it generates. |
||||
| 5 | Pentagonal Model (Martín, 2006) | Structural-functional model | It is based on a multisystemic conception of tourism, by making large subdivisions of it into: endogenous or properly tourist subsystem, exogenous subsystem or tourist environment and macro environment or general environment. | • Endogenous subsystem: tourist resources, economic organization and management of entities, tourist attractions and products, marketing, tourist offer, tourist flows.
• Exogenous subsystem: tourism policy, tourism ethics, tourism law, tourism economy, technological framework. • Macro environment: national and international politics, general economy and basic infrastructures, human resources (psycho-sociological and demographic factors). |
Source: self made.
Annex 4. Practical models of local (municipal) tourism management in the Spanish case. Synthesis based on legal formulas.
FORMULA: Integrated in the municipal Administration itself (without other Entities)
Legal category: Public Law
MODALITIES: Mayor's Office / Own or shared Council / Area, Service or Department
| REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE | FINANCING SYSTEM | |||
| PROS
(+) |
• Easy implementation and adaptation to the municipal administration.
• Easy assimilation by the municipal organization itself. • The creation of a Tourism Department (own or shared) is the first step to follow when a municipality wants to dedicate itself to Tourism. |
• Public financing.
• Total municipal control (via budget). |
||
| CONS
(-) |
• Difficulty in adapting the Organization (administrative regulations) and personnel (civil servants) to the representation needs of modern entities.
Legally, it is not possible to institutionalize private sector participation at the representative level, that is, in decision-making processes (except informal or consultative channels). |
• Impossibility of institutionalizing private participation through stable and regular mechanisms of contribution of private funds and of carrying out commercial operations and self-generation of funds. | ||
| MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | OBSERVATIONS | |||
| • Tourism policy controlled exclusively by the municipality, without interference.
• Tourism management under public control. • Traditional management model (budgetary) • Administrative and civil service inertia. • Little agility in procedures |
• It is the most traditional model and, in general, typical of municipalities with little critical mass or in which tourism is not a strategic sector, although there are some relevant exceptions (Benidorm).
• Tourism management is fully embedded in the municipal organization, without the existence of other autonomous or independent bodies. • Having a Department and Tourism Area, is a |
|||
| •
• • |
administrative.
Little operational for actions that require quick responses (marketing, promotion). Little attractiveness for the participation of the private sector (even in an advisory capacity) in tourism policy and management. Non-market oriented management system. |
A necessary condition (recognition and political leadership) but not sufficient, for a municipality in which Tourism is a strategic sector.
• Useful only for a first phase of tourism development, for those municipalities with little critical mass or in which tourism is not a strategic sector. Examples: • Direct dependence of the Mayor's Office: Benidorm • With its own or shared Department of Tourism: Pamplona, Malaga |
||
FORMULA: Organism or autonomous municipal entity
Legal category: Public Law
MODALITIES: Municipal Board / Municipal Institute / Public Foundation
| REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE | FINANCING SYSTEM | ||
| PROS
(+) |
• Easy implementation from the Public Administration.
• Useful when associations or private initiative are weak. • They allow a certain private participation in representative bodies, although their appointment usually depends on the municipal authority. • Flexibility in government formulas allowing the representation of the private sector regardless of economic contributions or contributions. |
• Almost all of the financing is public.
• Transparency: subject to public accounting. |
|
| CONS
(-) |
• The preponderance of the municipal administration is not very stimulating for the | • Little margin for private financing, which is usually very marginal. | |
| private participation.
• Private participation is generally of a testimonial or consultative nature. • You cannot participate in commercial companies. |
|||
| MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | OBSERVATIONS | ||
| • Tourism policy and management controlled by the municipality but with a certain degree of autonomy.
• It is a first step towards greater autonomy for tourism management, especially useful when private initiative is weak. • Lack of agility in management and contracting. • Official and bureaucratic approach in its personnel and in its internal organization. |
• The Entity depends on and is controlled by the Department of Tourism and / or the Mayor's Office.
• The most common formula is that of the Board of Trustees, which is considered an autonomous body of an administrative nature. • Most of the Convention Bureau, which have their own legal personality and are of a public nature and initiative, use this legal formula of an autonomous public body. • It is necessary to mention a new legal figure (2003) which is the Local Business Public Entity (EPEL), for public entities that provide services or goods susceptible to economic compensation. It is a public figure but in contractual relationships it is governed by private law. Examples: • Institute / Municipal Tourist Board: Elx / Elche, Alicante, Tarragona, Salou • Public Foundation (Zaragoza) • EPEL: Sitges |
||
FORMULA: Consortium
Legal category: Public Law
MODALITIES: Public / Mixed
| REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE | FINANCING SYSTEM | |||
| PROS
(+) |
• Its creation does not require formalities and is governed by the simple conjunction of wills that intervene, materialized in the Statute.
• Very flexible formula to adapt to the particular needs of each case, since a large part of its operating system (internal regime) is left to the agreement of the parties, especially in the representation and government systems. • The representation and management fees must not be proportional to the economic contributions of the partners. • Very flexible formula that allows a high degree of involvement of the private sector. • Very suitable for stimulating private involvement in its initial phases. |
• Wide diversity of sources of funding: from those of a public entity to those of a private entity through commercial activities.
• As a public entity, it has the power to collect income (taxes, special contributions), set public prices, receive subsidies and public aid. • Non-seizure of your assets. • It is exempt from corporation tax. |
||
| CONS
(-) |
• Certain administrative limitations regarding personnel and hiring.
• Subject to a regime of guardianship by the autonomous administrations. • Only non-profit private entities can form part of the consortium entity, not commercial ones. |
• The public sector must be willing to give up power in the financial and economic sphere. | ||
| MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | OBSERVATIONS | |||
| • Transparency in management, as it is subject to public accounting.
• It allows non-politicization by reducing dependence on |
• It is still a minority formula, although it is used by successful municipalities that have sought a mixed entity with a high degree of private involvement that creates synergies with the public sector.
• The Consortium is the result of the agreement of one or more public Administrations (Local, Autonomous, etc.) and Entities |
|||
| •
• • |
Public administrations.
Ease of integration of public and private synergies (non-profit) around a common goal. You can participate in commercial companies and carry out through these commercial activities for profit that you could not directly carry out. Subject to the Accounting Plan of the Administrations. Public, less agile than that of private companies. |
private non-profit organizations (Chambers of Commerce, Business Associations, Private Foundations, etc.) for a public interest purpose.
• It is an ideal formula for tourist destinations that seek a great involvement of the private sector in management and financing. • The private sector must be institutionally articulated and willing to commit to both management and financing. Examples: • Barcelona • Plazaola • Seville |
||
FORMULA: Commercial company
Legal category: Private Law
MODALITIES: Public / Mixed
| REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE | FINANCING SYSTEM | ||
| PROS
(+) |
• Its government is governed by a very clear principle of proportionality according to the capital contributed.
• It allows great flexibility and adaptability in the participation of the partners through the sale of shares or capital increases. • Ease of incorporation of the private sector, as a partner or associate. • Flexibility and agility in the organization and contracting. • More comfortable and understandable legal framework to stimulate the incorporation of the private sector. |
• It allows the direct participation of all types of private companies in the shareholding, very useful for expanding the financial (and representative) base.
• You can carry out commercial activities and earn income by diversifying your sources of financing. • As a municipal company, it cannot be subject to pressure and does not need bonds for public procurement. |
|
| CONS | • The proportionality of capital with respect to | • You can give an image | |
| (-) | Representation can be an inconvenience to give voice and vote to the private sector when it is very weak, especially in decisions on tourism policy and strategy.
• The commercial company formula, by itself, does not avoid the danger of bureaucratization. |
too commercialized at the service of the shareholders of the mixed company.
• Danger of weak financial involvement due to the participation of an insufficient, immature or institutionally poorly structured business sector. |
|
| MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | OBSERVATIONS | ||
| • Very suitable legal formula for market-oriented activities and results in activities of public interest.
• Flexibility and agility in management. • Ideal for marketing, promotion and direct provision of tourist services. • They are governed in accounting by the rules of private companies, but their inspection is carried out by the Local Intervention. • Less bureaucratic approach and organization and more suitable staff (non-official) for commercial activities. • There may be a loss of transparency due to less administrative controls. |
• It can be used by Administrations. Public to develop non-profit activities of general public interest.
• In Spain this figure is used by the Administration. Local for the provision and coverage of certain public services: water, transport, urban planning, etc. • In the area of Tourism, its application is more limited and more recent, although it is increasing. • When the capital stock is 100% municipal they are called municipal companies, and mixed municipal companies when there are other participants. • They are used above all for activities that require contracts of a commercial and commercial nature. Examples: • Municipal company: Santiago de Compostela, San Sebastián, Lloret de Mar. • Joint venture: Gijón and "Tenerife Turismo" • Internationally: Amsterdam, London, Berlin, Copenhagen, Trentino, Gothenburg. |
||
FORMULA: Foundation Legal category: Private Law
| REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE | FINANCING SYSTEM | |||
| PROS
(+) |
• They can be constituted by both natural and legal persons, public or private, which opens up many possibilities for participation in mixed entities.
• They may have investee companies of a commercial nature. |
• In addition to the initial patrimony, it can be financed by the periodic contributions of its employers, the contributions of the patron partners (non-patrons), the income from their commercial activities and transfers, subsidies and donations.
• Contributions can be monetary or non-monetary. • Both the Foundation and its employers or “contributors” enjoy significant tax incentives, a fact that encourages private participation. |
||
| CONS
(-) |
• They are subject to strong control, supervision and supervision by the Administration. Public in order that its activities are adjusted to the purposes of general interest. | • In principle, they must depend for their economic survival on the initial assets, dependence that could constitute a limiting factor and financial uncertainty. | ||
| MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | OBSERVATIONS | |||
| • Ease of contracting, both directly and indirectly through investee companies.
• Agility in management and contracting because they are subject to the rules of private law. |
• Non-profit organization for purposes that must necessarily be of general interest.
• It is a useful legal figure for the creation of mixed Tourist Management Entities due to its great advantages. • Appropriate formula for those municipalities in which there is a mature and solid private sector since a high degree of involvement and |
|||
| • | Danger of a certain degree of bureaucratization due to the strong control, tutelage and supervision of the
Public administration. |
commitment of the private sector already from its initial phase.
Examples: • Foundation (mixed, with a public majority): Cuenca, Valencia. |
||
FORMULA: Civil Association
Legal category: Private Law
MODALITIES: Private
| REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE | FINANCING SYSTEM | ||
| PROS
(+) |
• It allows organically conveying the concerns of the private sector in areas where tourism is an emerging activity and the private initiative is active and entrepreneurial and, on the other hand, the public sector has difficulties in taking the initiative.
• Allows the Association to adapt to the natural limits of the destination (Valley, Region, Route, etc.) outside the administrative divisions. • In the field of Tourism it is a legal figure widely used to represent sectoral interests. • On the other hand, for Management and Promotion Bodies it is little used today although it had a certain role decades ago (Tourist Initiative Centers). |
• They are financed, in principle, based on the fees of their partners.
• They may have other sources of income, including grants or transfers. • If they are declared of public utility (general interest), they enjoy important tax advantages and public incentives. |
|
| CONS
(-) |
• Does not favor organic representation if the private sector is weak, not very active or lacks entrepreneurial strength. | • In general, they are very weak from an economic point of view.
• The emphasis the law places on your |
|
| Non-profit nature can be an obstacle to carry out certain commercial and commercial activities.
• By relying essentially on membership fees and transfers and grants for specific programs, they have difficulties if they do not adopt other formulas that ensure more stable and adequate funding. |
|||
| MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | OBSERVATIONS | ||
| • The weight and management is carried out by the private initiative, although public entities (Municipalities, Provincial Councils, etc.) are also integrated as associates.
• Private tourist associations are currently financed essentially with public funds derived from transfers and subsidies thanks to rural and mountain development programs. • Its non-profit nature conditions its accounting and management. The fact that they can participate in commercial companies can alleviate these restrictions. |
• The private Civil Association is used today in some territorial areas of
• supra-municipal character (Valley, Region), especially emerging mountain or rural tourist destinations in which the private sector needs to be associated and does not have a territorial administrative framework that fits their needs. • It is also used for specific European mountain and rural development programs. Examples: • Garrotxa Terra d'Acolliment Association. • Tourist Association of the Region of Jacetania. |
||
Source: ROS (2008: 98-109).
The cluster concept is used to analyze the agglomeration of companies and institutions, which in a given geographic space are related based on the production of goods and services. In tourism, this concept has become generalized because it is very useful for analyzing the set of companies that provide services around tourist attractions and their relationship with the public and private sector institutions that make up the superstructure. At least three approaches are distinguished that affect the proposals for its promotion: the cluster as a tourism product, the diamond model of competitiveness and the cluster as an interrelation of social actors (Porter, 2000; Varisco, 2007).
The term “masters” of the value chain refers to “entities that play a role in coordinating the value chain or the components of the destination experience” (Bitran et al., 2007, cited by Padurean, 2010: twenty-one).
The most important elements of this theory applicable to tourism are, according to Martín (2006: 16-17): “its holistic, integrating nature; the dynamic and open character, but always in close interrelation with other systems; the search for balance in the system; the organization of the interrelations, typical of the subsystems and of them with other systems; the feasibility; causality, seen with a non-linear vision of this social phenomenon, that is, circular-relational. "
Download the original file
