A Model of Tourism Destination Competitiveness1 - The Case of The Italian Destinations of Exc

Turismo y Sociedad
ISSN: 2346-206X
revistaturismoysociedad@uexternado.ed
u.co
Universidad Externado de Colombia
Colombia
Goffi, Gianluca
A Model of Tourism Destination Competitiveness: The case of the Italian Destinations Of
Excellence
Turismo y Sociedad, vol. 14, 2013, pp. 121-147
Universidad Externado de Colombia
Bogotá, Colombia
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=576261184008
How to cite
Complete issue
Scientific Information System
More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
Abstract
Tourism worldwide is becoming increasingly
competitive. Competitiveness has been asso-
Gianluca Goffi, PhD
ciated in the tourism literature as a critical ele-
Ph. D. en Economía Empresarial Università Politecnica ment for the success of tourism destinations.
delle Marche-Italia. Funcionario Público Departamento de Particular emphasis is placed on identifying
and analysing the various factors that influen-
Industria, Artesanado y Trabajo Regional Marche-Italia.
Investigador en el Observatorio Regional del Mercado
de Trabajo Marche-Italia. Doctorando en Economía y ce the competitiveness of tourism destina-
Management. Universita di Urbino-Italia tions. The paper extends the Richie & Crouch
(2000) model and develops a set of indicators
[gianluca.goffi@uniurb.it].
that considers the different issues concerning

tourism competitiveness. The indicators are
focused on the various dimensions of sustai-
nability. The paper offers insights into the
model, each determinant has been extensi-
vely described. The aim of the paper is to test
whether and to what extent the current set of
indicators integrated into the present model
can help explaining the competitiveness of a
tourism destination. The model is tested on a
unique dataset of 610 Italian Destinations of
Excellence. Principal Component Analysis is
applied on the responses to the items measu-
ring destination competitiveness.
Keywords: Tourism Destination, Deter-

minants of Destination Competitiveness,
Competitiveness Model, Competitiveness
A Model of Tourism Indicators.
Destination
Competitiveness1: Resumen
The case of El turismo en todo el mundo se está volviendo
the Italian Destinations cada vez más competitivo. La competitividad
Of Excellence se ha asociado en la literatura del turismo
como un elemento crítico para el éxito de los
Un modelo de destino destinos turísticos. Se hace especial énfasis en
turístico competitivo: la identificación y análisis de los diversos fac-
el caso de los destinos tores que influyen en la competitividad de los
italianos de excelencia destinos turísticos. En el documento abarca el
Modelo de Richie y Crouch (2000) y desarro-
lla un conjunto de indicadores que tenga en
cuenta los diferentes temas relacionados con
1 Fecha de recepción: 03 de marzo de 2013.
Fecha de modificación: 05 de abril de 2013. la competitividad turística. Los indicadores se
Fecha de aceptación: 23 de abril de 2013. centran en las diversas dimensiones de la sos-
Para citar el artículo: Goffi, G. (2013). “A Model of Tourism tenibilidad. En el documento se ofrece infor-
Destinations Competitiveness: The case of the Italian
Destinatios of Excellence”, en Anuario Turismo y Sociedad,
mación sobre el modelo, cada determinante ha
vol. xiv, pp.121-147. sido descrito ampliamente. El objetivo de este
Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147
121
y
SOCIEDAD
pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 121 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Universidad Externado de Colombia F a c u l t a d d e A d m i n i s t r a c i ó n d e E m p r e s a s Tu r í s t i c a s y H o t e l e r a s
trabajo es comprobar si –y en qué medida– el The aim of the paper is to test whether and
actual conjunto de indicadores integrados to what extent the current set of indicators
en el modelo actual puede ayudar a explicar integrated into the present model can help
la competitividad de un destino turístico. El explaining the competitiveness of a tourism
modelo se ha probado en un conjunto de datos destination.
único de 610 destinos italianos de Excelencia.
Análisis de Componentes Principales se apli- The model is tested on a unique dataset of 610
ca en las respuestas a los ítems que miden la Italian destinations of excellence. To reduce
competitividad del destino. the large set of variables to a smaller set the
paper uses a principal component analysis
Palabras clave: Destino Turístico, Deter- (pca). pca is applied on the responses to the
minantes del Destino Competitivo, Modelo items measuring destination competitiveness.
de Competitividad, Indicadores de Compe- The results from the pca provide a reduced set
titividad. of variables that helps explain the groups of
attributes which constitute the main determi-
Introduction nants of destination competitiveness.
Developments in international tourism have The output is reasonably similar to the co-
intensified competitiveness between tourism rresponding elements of the model; some
destinations. Nowadays, in the increasingly differences were expected because of the
competitive world tourism market, maintai- aggregation issue. pca confirms the crucial
ning competitiveness is a major challenge role played by the key attractors and by the
for many destinations. Many research studies tourism services, and highlights the importan-
have been produced to clarify the concept ce of tourism policy and destination manage-
of destination competitiveness. Most of the ment attributes.
studies have been limited to single aspects of
destination competitiveness. Less attention The paper is structured as follow. Section 2
has been devoted to develop a comprehensive summarizes the recent empirical and theoreti-
framework of the various components deter- cal models on the destination competitiveness
mining the competitive position of a tourism issue. Section 3 explains the development of
destination. The most well known model on the present model. Section 4 offers insights
overall tourism competitiveness is that of into the model, illustrating the determinants
Crouch & Ritchie (1999) and Ritchie & and the indicators. Section 5 describes the
Crouch (2000, 2003). Italian tourism system. Section 6 illustrates
the research methodology and provides a dis-
The paper extends the Ritchie & Crouch cussion of the main results. Some conclusions
(2000) model, adding further determinants are drawn in the last section of the paper.
to their original competitiveness model. The
paper also develops a set of indicators that
provides an integrated framework of the di- 1. Competitiveness of Tourism
fferent issues concerning competitiveness. Destinations
With respect to other empirical models (Sirše
& Mihalič, 1999; Dwyer, Livaic, Mellor, Competitiveness has been associated in the
2003; Enright & Newton, 2004; Gomezelj tourism literature as a crucial factor for the
& Mihalič, 2008), the present set of indica- success of tourist destinations Many defini-
tors is especially focused on sustainability. tions of tourism destination competitiveness
have been proposed. Buhalis (2000) defines
122
y
SOCIEDAD

competitiveness as «the effort and achieve- a part of the concept of sustainable develop-
ment of long-term profitability, above the ave- ment; the report of the World Commission on
rage of the particular industry within which Environment and Development, known as the
they operate as well as above alternative in- “Bruntland Report” propose this definition:
vestment opportunities in other industries». «sustainable development is development that
In Hassan’s view, competitiveness concerns meets the needs of the present without com-
«the destination’s ability to create and inte- promising the ability of future generations to
grate value-added products that sustain its meet their own needs» (wecd, 1987).
resources while maintaining market position
relative to competitors» (H assan , 2000: While there seems to be a consensus in the li-
239). According to Dwyer & Kim (2003) terature about the main objectives of competi-
destination competitiveness is «the ability of tiveness, there are various ways of explaining
a destination to deliver goods and services and measuring competitiveness in tourism
that perform better than other destinations on literature. Many models were developed to
those aspects of the tourism experience consi- explain and/or measure destination competi-
dered being important by tourists» (Dwyer & tiveness. Some of them are theoretical.
Kim, 2003: 375). Ritchie & Crouch (2003)
describe competitiveness as the «ability to The model of Ritchie & Crouch (2000,
increase tourism expenditure, to increasingly 2003), is the most well-known conceptual
attract visitors while providing them with sa- model of destination competitiveness in
tisfying, memorable experiences and to do so tourism literature and has been the starting
in a profitable way, while enhancing the well- point for many other research studies about
being of destination residents and preserving destination competitiveness. The model dis-
the natural capital of the destination for future tinguishes 36 attributes of competitiveness
generations». classified into five key factors. Dwyer &
Kim (2003) translate the model of Ritchie &
These findings support the view that «to be Crouch (2000) into specific indicators. The
competitive a destination’s development of model explicitly identifies new key factors
tourism must be sustainable, not just econo- as demand condition and situational condi-
mically and not just ecologically, but socially, tions to contribute to determine destination
culturally and politically as well (...). Com- competitiveness.
petitiveness is illusory without sustainability»
(Ritchie & Crouch, 2000:5). Sustainability De Keyser & Vanhove (1994) develop a
has become a prevailing issue in tourism li- theoretical model underlining the macroeco-
terature (among others, Krippendorf 1987, nomics factors influencing tourism industry,
Inskeep 1991, Müller 1994, Clarke 1997, along with other factors as supply, transport,
Middleton & Hawkins 1998, Hassan 2000, demand and tourism policy. Hassan’s model
Hall 2000, Ritchie & Crouch 2003, Wall (2000) highlights the importance of envi-
& Mathieson 2006) and in many World re- ronmental sustainability, as one of the four
ports (unwto 1998, 1999, 2004) or European determinants of tourism competitiveness.
reports (European Union 2006). Sustainabi- Heath’s model (2002) presents an integrated
lity is much more than only a function of the consideration of the several issues involving
natural environment (Global Environmental the concept of competitiveness.
Facility, 1998). Since the 1980s sustainabili-
ty has been used more in the sense of human Other models of destination competitiveness
sustainability. This has resulted in the most are empirical. They were applied with the aim
widely quoted definition of sustainability as of analyzing the competitive position of par-
123
y
SOCIEDAD

ticular destinations (Sirše & Mihalič, 1999; perceptions (Haahti and Yavas, 1983; Ko-
Dwyer, Livaic, Mellor, 2003; Enright zac & Rimmington, 1998, 1999; Bahar &
& Newton, 2004; Gomezelj & Mihalič, Kozac, 2007; Cracolici & Nijkamp, 2008).
2008). Each one of these empirical models Enright & Newton (2004) claim that tou-
provides very useful insights into destination rists could quite easily evaluate the standard
competitiveness. They focus on several issues components of destination attractiveness,
and they consist of different determinants and but are less able to know the various factors
various indicators. that influence and determine the competitive
position of a tourism destination.
However, it is argued that none of the models
above provides a comprehensive treatment of Thus, a second approach is based on the em-
the various issues that regards each determi- pirical evaluation of a number of subjective
nant of destination competitiveness. indicators of tourism competitiveness, sur-
veyed on key tourism stakeholders (Sirše
Different approaches for explaining and mea- & Mihalič, 1999; Faulkner, Oppermann,
suring competitiveness of tourism destina- Fredline, 1999; Dwyer, Livaic, Mellor,
tions can be distinguished from the literature. 2003; D wyer et al., 2004; E nright &
Indicators of destination competitiveness can Newton, 2004, 2005; Kaynak & Maran-
be classified in objectively or subjectively du , 2007; G omezelj & M ihalič , 2008;
measured variables. Bornhorst, J. R. B. Ritchie, Sheehan,
2010; Crouch, 2010). Gomezelj & Mihalič
For what concerns the first category, studies (2008) assert that the understanding of people
such as Gooroochurn & Sugiyarto (2005), who have some significant knowledge of what
Cracolici & Nijkamp (2006), Mazanec, makes a tourism destination competitive can
Wober, Zins (2007), Cracolici, Nijkamp, supply a helpful point of departure for analy-
Rietveld (2008), Croes (2010), Zhang et ses such as this. This last approach has been
al. (2011) make use of published secondary followed in the paper.
data as indicators of competitiveness. Quan-
titative data have often been applied because
these were seen as more precise and accurate. 2. A Model of Destination
However, Crouch (2010) points out that Competitiveness
using quantitative data is “quite doubtful”
for several reasons. First, the volume of in- The paper extends the Richie & Crouch mo-
dicators could be massive and discouraging. del (2000) and groups some of the elementary
Second, finding available data for each mea- determinants of destination competitiveness
sure of destination competitiveness would be differently than does the Ritchie & Crouch
very problematic. Third, many of the feature model (2000). The model identifies seven
measures are multidimensional, abstract or key determinants of destination competiti-
inaccurate. Fourth, many indicators are not veness, as shown in fig. 1: core resources
always quantifiable and may be necessary and key attractors; tourism services; general
subjective. infrastructures; conditioning and supporting
factors; tourism policy, planning and develo-
Concerning the second category – qualitati- pment; destination management; demand. As
ve data or “soft measures” – two approaches can be seen in the fig. 1, there is a separation
could be found in tourism literature. In the between resources and services that transfer
first approach, competitiveness is measured the value directly to the tourist and activities
using survey data of tourists’ opinions and supporting or conditioning their performan-
124
y
SOCIEDAD

ces. This is based on the “value fan” configu- in the management of the core resources and
ration by Flagestad & Hope (2001), which also influence the availability and quality of
takes as a reference Porter’s (1985) value tourism services.
chain model and Stabell & Fjelstad (1996,
1998) studies. The elements “core resources and key attrac-
tors”, “tourism policy, planning and develop-
The boxes “tourism policy, planning and de- ment” and “destination management” derive
velopment” and “destination management” from the Richie & Crouch model (2000).
are grouped within a larger box; moreover They lump together under the label “suppor-
“tourism policy, planning and development” ting factors and resources” two subcompo-
is linked forwards to the box “destination nents as “hospitality” and “infrastructure”.
management”. This indicates that while tou- In this model they are regarded as separate
rism policy set a framework within which a factors from “conditioning and supporting
competitive destination can be developed on factors”. Many authors (Pearce, 1981; Mur-
the long term, destination management deals phy, 1985; Inskeep, 1991; Gunn, 2002) un-
with its various factors in a short time hori- derline the importance of these components,
zon, in order to ensure economic profitability, regarding them as separate primary elements.
and avoiding degradation of the elements Moreover, respect to Ritchie & Crouch
that forms the competitive position of a des- (2000), the model explicitly recognizes the
tination. The one-directional arrows from demand factor as a fundamental determinant,
this larger box indicates that it can influence as illustrated by Dwyer & Kim (2003).
both the conditioning and supporting factors
and the availability and quality of general It is proposed a set of indicators that is con-
infrastructures; it can play an important role sidered useful for analyzing the competiti-
Fig. 1 Competitiveness and sustainability of a tourism destination: a model of evaluation
7. DEMAND
Primary activities 1. CORE RESOURCES

and resources 2. TOURISM SERVICES
AND KEY ATTRACTORS
4. CONDITIONING AND 3. GENERAL

SUPPORTING FACTORS INFRASTRUCTURES
6. DESTINATION
MANAGEMENT
Support activities
and resources
5. TOURISM POLICY
PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
Source: adapted from Ritchie & Crouch (2000)
125
y
SOCIEDAD

veness of a tourism destination, as shown in Determinants and indicators PCA solution

tab. 1. The indicators derive from the major
empirical models of destination competiti- Artistic and architectural features 9
veness, further enriched with indicators that Green areas
are inferred from the conceptual models of
Cultural attractors 9
destination competitiveness and from the
wider literature in tourism policy, planning Events 3
and management. The choice is made consi-
Leisure activities 3
dering the ability of each variable to identify
the most important aspects that contribute Evening entertainment and nightlife 3
to the competitiveness of a destination. The Gastronomy ant typical products 8
most important criterion for the selection of
the indicators is that they are policy relevant, Shopping opportunities 3
as suggested by Miller (2001). 2) TOURISM SERVICES
Quality of accommodations 12
The majority of the indicators proposed refer
to sustainability issues. From a sustainabili- Quantity of accommodations 12
ty perspective, the indicators comprised by Environmental friendliness of
the current empirical models of destination accommodations
12
competitiveness (Sirše & Mihalič, 1999;
Dwyer, Livaic, Mellor, 2003; Enright & Food services quality 8
Newton, 2004; Gomezelj & Mihalič, 2008) Tourist oriented services

do not appear to be entirely relevant. The key
3) GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURES
reason is that they do not seem to provide
an integrated treatment of the various issues Environmental friendliness and quality
2
surrounding the concept of tourism sustaina- of transportation services
bility. In particular, they do not place enough Quality of road system 2
emphasis on the social, cultural and economic
dimensions of sustainability, and on collabo- Communication system 2
ration issues. Since the 1990s sustainability Accessibility of facilities by disabled
2
has been the focus of discussion and studies. persons
Thus, the main elements of sustainability in
Medical care facilities 2
their economic, social and environmental
dimension (Swarbrooke, 1999) are transla- Sanitation, sewage and solid waste
2
ted into specific indicators. A major frame of disposal
reference for the choice of the indicators, is 4) CONDITIONING AND SUPPORTING FACTORS
represented by the “Tourism Development’s
Accessibility of destination 2
Magic Pentagon” (Müller, 1994).
Proximity to other tourist destinations 2
Tab. 1 Selected Indicators of Destination
Destination links with major origin
Competitiveness 10
markets
Determinants and indicators PCA solution
Value for money in destination tourism
10
1) CORE RESOURCES AND KEY ATTRACTORS experience
Natural resources 7 Value for money in accommodations 10
Historical and archaeological sites 9 Presence of local businesses 5
126
y
SOCIEDAD

Determinants and indicators PCA solution Determinants and indicators PCA solution
Management capabilities of tourism Effective market segmentation 6

5
firms
Effectiveness in crafting tourism
1
Use of IT by tourism firms 5 experiences
Local supply of goods and services to Tourist destination communication 1

8
tourists and tourism businesses
Visitor satisfaction management 11
Level of professional skills in tourism 5
Tourist guidance and information 1
Hospitality of residents towards tourists Stewardship of the natural environment 1
Environmental quality 7 Tourism impacts management and
1
Safety 7 monitoring
5) TOURISM POLICY, PLANNING AND Effectiveness of destination manage-

1
DEVELOPMENT ment structure
Political commitment to tourism 1 Promotion of partnerships between

1
public and private stakeholders
Integrated approach to tourism planning 1
Promotion of partnerships among
1
Environmentally compatible approach tourist businesses
1
to tourism development planning
7) DEMAND FACTOR
Public sector commitment to minimi-
Tourists’ interests in natural and cultu-
zing negative environmental impacts 1 4
ral local heritage
of tourism
Tourists’ respect for local traditions
Public sector commitment to minimi- 4
and values
zing negative social impacts of tourism 1
on local community Tourists’ enviromental awareness 4
Public sector commitment to maximi- Awareness of destination 6

sing economic impacts of tourism on 13
(Non) seasonality in tourist flows
local community
Level of repeat visitors 11
Clear policies in creating formal em-
13
ployment opportunities “Fit” between destination products and
visitor preferences
Emphasis on community empowerment 13
Public sector commitment to tourism/

1
hospitality education and training
3. Insights into the model:
Collaboration among public sector
1
Determinants and Indicators
units for local tourism development
Cooperation between public and priva- 3.1 Core resources and Key Attractors
1
te sector for local tourism development
Core resources and key attractors are the
Emphasis on community participatory
1 fundamental reasons why visitors choose one
process in tourism planning
particular destination over another. There are
6) DESTINATION MANAGEMENT various types of attractors (natural, cultural,
Effectiveness of destination positioning 6
events, activities, etc.); they provide the foun-
dation for a memorable experience.
127
y
SOCIEDAD

Natural resources can be considered among capacity of events to attract high number of
the most important resources for a tourism tourists and generate tourism expenditures
destination. A natural resource is something making an important economic contribution
that exists in nature which can be used by to tourist destinations is well documented
humans, also for tourism purposes, at current (Getz, 1997; Shone & Parry, 2001; Van
economic, social, cultural, and institutio- der Wagen, 2002; Yeoman et al., 2003; Raj
nal conditions. In recent years, increasing et al., 2008; Allen et al., 2008; Bowdin et
awareness among tourism researchers of the al., 2010; Robinson, 2010). The assortment
relations between tourism and natural resou- of activities is of rising significance as the
rce management has resulted in a significant visitors ever increasing seek experiences that
body of academic literature examining this overtake the more inactive tourism of the past
issue. Mihalič (2000) points out that a well- (Poon, 1993). Entertainment, also, can be a
managed destination environment is the best key supplier to the tourism sector (Hughes,
destination advertiser. «A destination needs 2000). It may occupy a major position in the
to protect the integrity and the attraction of its destination competitive strategy, depending
own product, plus guard against the action and on its perceived uniqueness rather than on its
rivalry of competitors» (Murphy 1995: 166). quantity (Dwyer & Kim 2003).
Cultural resources are represented by three in- Shopping is for many tourists one of the most
dicators: “historical and archaeological sites”, popular activities. Shopping tourism can also
“artistic and architectural features”, “cultural be seen as a vehicle to revitalize traditio-
attractors”. «Culture, broadly defined, is a nal urban centres, deteriorating resorts and
second very powerful dimension of desti- even rural areas (Jansen-Verbeke, 1991).
nation attractiveness» (Ritchie & Crouch, Timothy (2005) provides a comprehensive
2003:115). In the last two decades, many texts examination of the relationships between
were published about this subject of rising tourism, leisure and shopping.
interest (Richards, 1996, 2007; Richards &
Munsters, 2010; Boniface, 1995; Walle, “Gastronomy and typical products” is also
1998; McKercher & du Cros, 2002; Sigala included among the key attractors. Systematic
& Leslie, 2005; Smith, 2003, 2009; Smith & research on gastronomy and tourism has been
Robinson, 2006). A high proportion of inter- neglected until recently. Gastronomy is one
national travellers are now considered cultural of the most important elements affecting the
tourists (Richards, 1996). The culture and authenticity of a tourism destination (Sedmak
heritage attractors of a destination provide a & Mihalič, 2008). Hjalager & Richards
significant force for the potential visitor (Rit- (2002) explore the role of gastronomy as a
chie & Zins, 1978; Cohen, 1988; Prentice, source of regional identity, and also a source
1993; Murphy, et al., 2000). of economic development related to tourism.
Events, leisure activities, nightlife and shop- 3.2 Tourism Services

ping are also primary motivations to visit
a destination (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). «Under the pressure of increasing arrivals the
Events could extend the seasonal life, espe- business sector responds with the develop-
cially in tourism destinations with an inbuilt ment of specialised services for visitors and
seasonality (Getz, 1989, 1991; Hall, 1987; so the area begins to take on the familiar cha-
F aulkner , 2003). Hallmark events can racteristics of a tourist destination» (Laws,
generate high levels of interest in visitors 1995: 9). This determinant includes “quality”,
and several advantages (Hall, 1992). The “quantity” and “environmental friendliness”
128
y
SOCIEDAD

of tourist accommodations, “food service in less developed countries or regions, which

quality” and “tourist oriented services”. often have limited infrastructures (Heraty,
1989). Even if a destination may possess a
Hospitality has been defined as “the very es- great quantity of resources and attractors, it is
sence” of tourism (Page, 2003: 254) and has required the support of other elements in or-
a very important role in the generation of eco- der to be adequate to receive tourists (Gunn,
nomic benefits for the community (Cooper 2002). «The natural resources of tourism
et. Al, 1998). A crucial issue related to hos- have no economic value in themselves. That
pitality is quality (Qu, Ryan & Chu, 2000); is, for example, a scenic valley has no econo-
this question has been examined in a number mic value in itself if the only creatures able
of studies (among others, Sargeant & Mo- to experience the scenery are the local fauna.
hamad, 1999; Tsang & Qu, 2000; Briggs, Building a road into the valley, thus providing
Sutherland, Drummond, 2007). Among the access to tourists does however provide va-
various forms of tourist accommodations, for lue» (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999: 143).
many nations hotels are the more significant
in terms of number of tourists and revenues This determinant covers the road system and
(Page, 2003). According to Go, Pine, & Yu transportation, the communication system,
(1994), there is a mutual influence between the medical care facilities, sanitation and
destination’s economic growth and hotels sewage. Kaul (1985), Prideaux (2000),
performance. Nevertheless, many approaches Khadaroo & Seetanah (2007) shed light
in literature refer only to a limited number of on the relevance of transport infrastructure
elements of the hotel industry competitive- as a critical component of successful tourism
ness; much less attention has been devoted to development. Passenger transportation rele-
develop a comprehensive framework (Tsai, vance has been extensively recognized both
Song & Wong, 2009). in the tourism planning literature (Gunn,
2002; Hall, 2000; Inskeep, 2001), and in
Like the lodging industry, the food services the wider tourism literature (Goeldner &
are fundamental in order to guarantee the Ritchie, 2003; Cooper et al., 1998; Page,
best possible experience to visitors. The food 2003). Telecommunications are also funda-
services consist of traditional restaurants, mental for tourism, both for the operation of
fast-food restaurants, cafeterias, travel food accommodation and touring services and for
services (in hotels, motels, airports). Over the tourists, especially business travellers.
past two decades the food business has grown
at a exceptional rate, especially the fast-food This determinant is also composed by further
segment. Although the fast food segment is attributes related to general infrastructures
the most rapidly growing segment, the high- not-specific to tourism (medical care facili-
quality segment and the local and traditional ties, sanitation, etc.). Maintaining minimum
restaurants must not be overlooked; much sanitation and hygiene standards is a prere-
of tourism business is based on customer quisite for tourism development: adequate
seeking a special and authentic experience medical care facilities are essential in any
(Sedmak & Mihalič, 2008). area, including tourism areas (Inskeep, 1991).
3.3 General Infrastructures 3.4 Conditioning and Supporting

Factors
General infrastructures provide the founda-
tion upon which a tourism destination can be Conditioning and supporting factors can
built and can be a particularly critical factor strengthen or weaken the impact of all other
129
y
SOCIEDAD

determinants of destination competitiveness. realized». Page (2005) examines the ques-

This determinant incorporates measures relations affecting the management of the very
ted to the accessibility of a destination and to fragmented nature of the businesses which
the links with other tourist areas. The “acces- may refer to tourism (accommodation and
sibility of destination” and the “proximity to hospitality services, tour agencies, retailers,
other tourist destinations” are strictly connec- visitor attractions, transportation services,
ted to the infrastructure issue. Accessibility is etc.). Moutinho (2000) widely analyzes the
concerned with the easiness to enter the des- various aspects of the management of the
tination, in part influenced by spatial issues, tourism firms.
in part conditioned by transportation services.
Proximity to other tourist areas can have an On the question of the skill levels, Choy
important role in the tourist development of a (1995) observes that the prevalence of hotels,
destination (Gunn, 2002); it is also influenced restaurants and bars in tourism may induce to
by transportation facilities. “Destination links think that tourism industry is relatively low
with major origin markets” depend on the skilled. The great changes which have hap-
professional, organizational and personal ties pened in tourism have made organizations
that stimulate people to visit the destination; more competitive and customers more de-
the challenge facing destination manager is to manding. Baum (1995) argues that skill levels
determine how to use these bonds to stimulate and human resource management can play a
and facilitate travel to the area (Ritchie & strategic role in the challenge to improve the
Crouch, 2003). quality of the tourism product and enhance
the market position of tourism destinations.
“Value for money in accommodation” and
“value for money in destination tourist ex- Concerning the “use of IT by tourism firms”,
perience” are two more variables included in Rimmington & Kozak in 1997 stated that
this determinant. A major element of attrac- IT could have created first and second class
tiveness for a tourism destination is the cost tourism destinations/organizations. Buhalis
of using tourist facilities and services within & Cooper in 1998 noted that the future com-
the destination compared to the costs within petitiveness of tourism industry would have
similar destinations (Inskeep, 1991). The pri- mostly depended on the range of telecommu-
ce tourists pay to visit and enjoy a destination nication technology used. The forecasts have
experience plays a key role in determining become reality: evidences show that operators
the choice travellers make (Crouch, 1992). and destinations with undeveloped telecom-
Price competitiveness has been defined as munication system are less suitable to reach
the destination price differentials coupled potential tourists and to manage customers.
with exchange rate movements, productivity
levels of various components of the tourist This determinant is also associated with three
industry and qualitative factors affecting the more variables: “hospitality of residents
attractiveness of a destination (Dwyer For- towards tourists”, “quality of the environ-
syth, Rao, 2000). ment” and “safety”. Hospitality of residents
is an important element of the overall travel
Various indicators refer to the conditions of experience. «The limit of tolerance for tou-
the local businesses. Wall & Mathieson rism may be described as a social carrying
(2006: 138) claim that «it is essential that capacity because exceeding this limit, will
the tourist industry is serviced, as far as pos- have negative effects on the industry, since
sible, by local producers if its full potential an unfriendly atmosphere will reduce desti-
contribution to the local economy is to be nation attractiveness» (Murphy, 1985:127).
130
y
SOCIEDAD

The “quality of the environment” is related to source use, organization, human resource);
the attractiveness of the destination: tourism structures (e.g. government, quasi-govern-
and environment are in a very complex rela- ment, and non-governmental organizations);
tionship (Butler, 2000). In a progressively scales (international, transnational, national,
more competitive business situation, the en- regional, local, site) and over different times
vironmental quality of the tourist destinations scale (Hall, 2000). Getz (1986) reviews 150
represents a vital ingredient. models of tourism planning and classifies
them into several categories. Getz (1987)
The attribute “safety” is also included in this identifies four broad traditions in tourism
determinant. During the vacation there is planning, not mutually exclusive: boosterism,
a possible risk of violence against tourists. an economic/industry-oriented approach, a
Security problems are higher in particular physical/spatial approach, and a community
destinations which are facing rapid develo- oriented approach.
pment. Supposed risks and safety concerns
were found to be stronger predictors of not An important objective of tourism planning
choosing regions for vacation (Sonmez & is to combine the tourism development with
Graefe, 1998). the social and economic life of a community
(Gunn, 2002). Destination areas need to be
3.5 Tourism Policy, Planning and planned with sensitivity to social, environ-
Development mental, and economic impacts in order to
minimize user conflicts and environmental
There is an extensive literature on tourism stress. Insufficient attention to factors deter-
planning with various emphases, including mining economic, social and environmental
Gunn’s concentration on spatial planning sustainability, have the potential to lead to un-
(Gunn, 2002), Murphy’s work on a com- desirable consequences (Hall, 2000). That is
munity approach (Murphy, 1985), Hall’s the reason why various indicators comprised
emphasis on the various levels of planning by this determinant refer to environment pro-
(Hall, 2000) and Inskeep’s comprehensive tection and minimization of negative social
approach (Inskeep, 1991). «Tourism policy and cultural impacts.
can be defined as a set of regulations, rules,
guidelines, directives and development/pro- This determinant also refers to variables
motion objectives and strategies that provide concerning the public sector commitment
a framework within which the collective and to maximizing economic impact of tourism
individual decisions directly affecting long- on local community. Any tourism strategy
term tourism development and daily activities must be able of meeting the economic needs
within a destination are taken» (Goeldner & of the residents over the long terms (Ritche
Ritchie, 2003: 413). & Crouch, 2003). In many authors’ view,
economic benefits from tourism should be
Hall (2000) states that tourism planning distributing among the population (among
needs a comprehensive and integrated ap- others, Müller, 1994; Ritchie & Crouch,
proach, which recognizes that resources, 2003; Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Tourism
services, facilities and infrastructures are inte- industry must concentrate the efforts on in-
rrelated with one another and with the social, creasing the utilization of local labour; this
cultural and natural environment. Planning also depends on the public sector commitment
for tourism is rarely exclusively devoted only to tourism and to hospitality education. The
to tourism and takes place in many forms (e. emphasis on community empowerment is
g. development, infrastructure, land and re- also essential in order to increase the capacity
131
y
SOCIEDAD

and capability of the people working in the 3.6 Destination Management

tourism industry: «it is an important way of
affecting impacts in ways that are benign to The success of tourism relies on a coordina-
destination communities» (Wall & Mathie- ted approach to the planning, development,
son, 2006: 307). management and marketing of the destination
(Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). While tourism
“Collaboration among public sector units”, policy set a framework within which a com-
“cooperation between public and private petitive destination can be developed on the
sector” and “emphasis on community parti- long term, destination management deals with
cipatory process” are three more indicators its various factors in a short time horizon, in
comprised by this determinant. Wall & order to ensure economic profitability while
Mathieson (2006) claim that organizations avoiding degradation of the elements that
at all levels should try to coordinate develo- forms the competitive position of a destina-
pment and planning initiatives. Gunn (2002) tion (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Swarbrooke
points out that an important planning effort (1999: 346) claims that «no one type of tou-
would be greater collaboration among public rism is inherently more sustainable, or better
sector units: fragmentation of policy regula- than any other. Managed well, probably any
tions and managerial practices tends to reduce kind of tourism can be highly sustainable,
greatly the competitiveness of a tourism des- while managed badly all tourism is, perhaps,
tination. There has been increasing attention unsustainable». Destination management has
given to the role that cooperation between the become a prevailing issue in tourism litera-
public and private sectors can play in suppor- ture and many academic books were publis-
ting the growth of a tourist destination. Ac- hed (among others, Laws, 1995; Ritchie &
cording to a unwto research, public-private Crouch, 2003; Weaver & Lawton, 2006;
sector cooperation is growing quite rapidly in Buhalis & Costa, 2006; Wang & Pizam,
all parts of the world, in emerging economies 2011).
as well as in developed countries: more and
more participants and special-interest groups This determinant incorporates various indi-
are becoming involved in this cooperation, cators related to the destination marketing.
not only those directly involved in tourism. Destination marketing is a fundamental com-
The study shows that cooperation between the ponent of destination management. Buhalis
public and private sectors is considered criti- (2000) asserts that destination marketing “fa-
cal to enhancing tourism destination competi- cilitates the achievement of tourism policy”.
tiveness (unwto, 2000). Hall (2000) argues Kozac & Baloglu (2010) point out that des-
that a destination needs to develop a series of tination marketing is more challenging than
positive inter-organisational relationships in other goods and services. A growing number
which common goals should be established. of academic conferences featuring this theme
Tourism generates changes which have se- have emerged; there have also been a number
rious consequences for residents in tourism of papers related to destination marketing pu-
areas. Because tourism affects the entire blished in academic journals.
community, participatory planning is essen-
tial (Murphy, 1985). Since the publication of In a highly competitive tourism market, seg-
Murphy’s text on this issue, community-based mentation, positioning and communication
tourism has become an area of extensive re- strategies are crucial to places aiming at
search in recent years. develop or consolidate visitor interest and
expenditure. Market segmentation has been
defined as the process of dividing a potential
132
y
SOCIEDAD

market into different groups, and selecting moment. Mihalic (2000) asserts that a well-
one or more segments as a target to be reached managed destination environment is the best
with a distinct marketing mix (Wilkie, 1986). destination advertiser. Ritchie & Crouch
For what concerns destination positioning, (2000) use the word “stewardship” to give
many definitions exist in literature. Heath special emphasis on caring for the long-term
and Wall (1992:136) assert that positioning well being of the natural resources. In order
regards the development and the communi- to protect the integrity of the attractions of a
cation of significant differences between the destination, it is fundamental to monitor tou-
offer of a region compared to competitors’ rism impacts. Monitoring tourism impacts im-
offer which address to the same market seg- plies systematic investigation of the changing
ment. Ahmed (1991) and Grabler (1997) effects of tourism (Laws, 1995).
also recognize that an accurate positioning
strategy for a destination requires a compari- Tourism is a composite sector, including
son with the competitors. Richie & Crouch a network of interconnected stakeholders
(2003: 200) define the destination’s position and organisations, both public and private,
in the market «how a destination is perceived working together. Private-public sector con-
by potential and actual visitors in terms of the figuration through partnership is difficult to
experience (and associated benefits) that it achieve but would be highly desirable (Go &
provides relative to competing destinations». Govers, 2000). Tourism is a very fragmented
Pike & Ryan (2004) list the key constructs to and heterogeneous industry with many small
be considered to enhance destination position businesses. A dmo (destination management
effectiveness. organization) serves as a coordinating bo-
dy for the many organizations involved in
Many other variables are included in this tourism. A primary aim of the dmos is to
determinant. “The effectiveness in crafting promote partnerships among the various
tourism experiences” is of rising significance operators. dmos, whose jurisdictions may
as the visitor ever increasing seeks experien- cover a country, state/province, region, or a
ces that overtake the more inactive tourism specific city/town, are a critical component of
of the past (Poon, 1993). A progressively the tourism industry. dmos can take various
more important factor of the tourism system forms, may have low/high level of formali-
is the “traveller guidance and information”; zation, can have various juridical status and
nevertheless, Gunn (2002) notes that many type of organizations. dmo members may
public tourism agencies still confuse informa- include governmental bodies, business asso-
tion with promotion. The “visitor satisfaction ciations, individuals or firms that directly or
management” is also a fundamental issue. indirectly support tourism (hotels, restaurants,
Evidence has shown that visitor satisfaction tour operators). The effectiveness of the dmo
relates to product development and quality can play a critical role, helping local firms to
issues that can only be met through both build sustainable competitive advantage and
improved training and cooperation between to create competitive advantage for the entire
the public sector and the tourism industry destination (Sainaghi, 2006).
(Baum, 1995).
3.7 Demand
“Stewardship of the natural environment”
and “tourism impacts monitoring” are also While the centre of the focus of the Ritchie
considered in this determinant. The manage- & Crouch competitiveness model is the
ment of the natural environment is one of the supply-side, Dwyer & Kim (2003) emphasize
most important issues facing the world at the that focusing only on the supply-side factors
133
y
SOCIEDAD

gives an incomplete picture of destination sonality in a destination by listing various

competitiveness. The nature of demand for disadvantages.
the industry’s product is regarded to have a
significant influence also in the wider com- The “awareness of a destination” is another
petitiveness literature (Porter, 1990). Ac- important element of the demand factor. The
cording to Dwyer & Kim (2003), this seems effectiveness of the marketing effort depends
to be similar in the tourism contest. Three in- on an understanding of potential visitors’ in-
dicators - “tourists’ interest in local heritage”, terests and attitudes toward the destination.
“tourists’ respect for local culture” and “en- Also the “fit between destination products and
vironmental awareness” - are connected with visitor preferences” is recognized to have a
the concept of responsible tourist behaviour. crucial role in satisfying visitor expectations
Frequently, tourists forget many social norms (Dwyer, Livaic, Mellor, 2003). It is one of
that control their social life in their place of the main factors affecting the intentions to
origin and «feel relatively free to indulge in revisit a tourist destination.
a relaxed dress code, loose sexual morals, or
heavy drinking, or over eating» (Laws, 1995:
74). Problems of crime, prostitution, drugs or 4. The Italian Case
alcohol may be aggravated by “non respon-
sible” tourism. Sharpley (1994: 84) gives a The Italian tourism system can be considered
description of the responsible tourist as the an interesting case study for many reasons.
person who «seeks quality rather than value, Italy is one of the world’s leading tourism des-
is more adventurous, more flexible, more tinations, with outstanding resources, histori-
sensitive to the environment and searches for cal exhibits and unique characteristics. Italy’s
greater authenticity than the traditional, mass natural beauty offer magnificent beaches with
tourist». Swarbrooke (1999) lists the respon- 7,458 km of coastlines, 6,701 km of ski runs
sibilities of the tourists: obeying local laws, in the Alps and in the Apennine mountains.
not offending cultural norms of behaviour, Moreover, it has an abundance of high qua-
not harming physical environment, minimi- lity cultural and natural heritage. Italy also
ze the use of scarce resources. Tourist codes has the most World Heritage sites (47) than
of behaviour have also been developed to any other country on the planet. In terms of
minimize negative impacts of tourists on the its performance, Italy ranks 5th worldwide by
social and physical environment (e.g. Mason the number of international tourist arrivals
& Mowforth, 1996). (after France, usa, China and Spain) and al-
so 5th by the amount of international tourism
Demand also involves seasonality. Seasona- receipts (unwto, 2012). Adding the number
lity is one of the main distinctive features of of domestic tourists to foreigners, each year
the tourism phenomenon. Strong seasonality almost 95.5 million people travel around Italy
causes difficulties for businesses and for (Istat, 2011).
destination managers, as facilities to meet
peak demand has to be established, and at Tourism is one of Italy’s most significant
other time of the year reduced tourism acti- economic sectors. While the direct contribu-
vity cannot sustain the peak level of business tion of tourism is 3.3% of gdp in 2011 (51.4
(Laws, 1995). The special 1999 issue of bn euros), the direct and indirect impacts are
Tourism Economics on this topic made an around 8.6% of gdp (136.1 bn euros) (wttc,
important contribution to the understanding 2012). Italy has the highest share (5.1%) of
of the problems related to seasonality; Baum people employed in the horeca sector (ho-
(1999) summarizes the implications of sea- tels, restaurants, catering) in Europe after
134
y
SOCIEDAD

Spain (Eurostat, 2008). Tourism generates ture regarding the number of accommodation
868,500 jobs directly in 2011 (3.8% of to- facilities shows that Italy has 145,358 accom-
tal employment), but the total contribution modation facilities and 4.598 million bed
of tourism to employment is estimated at spaces (total accommodation). It can count
2,176,000 jobs (10.4% of total employment) on 33,967 hotels (from five-star luxury to
(wttc, 2012). one star) and 2.227 million bed spaces (Istat,
2011). The Italian hotel market is the second
Nonetheless, Italian tourism faces many biggest in the world; nevertheless it appears
problems, including areas of management extremely fragmented and relatively low
(specifically marketing and promotion), quality: 32% of the hotels are one or two stars
policy and regulation, infrastructures, qua- (Istat, 2011). The accommodation supply is
lity of accommodation facilities. Italy is the constituted by 23.4% hotels and 76.6% of
26th ranked country in the World Economic other accommodation facilities. However,
Forum’s Travel & Tourism Competitiveness other accommodation facilities account for
Index (compared to France’s 7th, usa 6th and 51.6% of total beds, suggesting that they are
Spain’s 4th position) and is ranked 18th in Eu- on average smaller in size than hotels. Chain
rope (wef, 2013). penetration is minimal in Italy accounting
for 6% of the room stock (Mintel, 2004).
Although various limitations have been iden- The Italian tourism supply is dominated by
tified by Crouch (2007) in the reliability and companies which are family-owned. Italy’s
validity of this index, it can give a starting company structure in this industry has one
point in order to identify the main problems of the highest proportion of micro (one to
and weaknesses of the Italian tourism system. nine employees) and small companies (<50
These include policy rules and regulations, employees) in the eu: 62,3% under 20 em-
where Italy ranks 100th out of 140 countries, ployees, compared to the 54,8% of France,
government prioritization of the tourism in- to the 24,7% of Spain, and 20,4% of the uk
dustry (79th) and effectiveness of marketing (oecd, 2010). There are advantages to such
and branding (116th).There is also insufficient an industry structure as market niche advan-
focus on developing the sector in an environ- tages, flexibility, personalized services, but
mentally sustainable way (Italy ranks 119th in on the negative side, small family-owned
the sustainability of tourism industry develo- and managed hotels often suffer from limited
pment). The country continues to suffer from marketing skills, lack of planning, gaps in hu-
a lack of price competitiveness (134th). In man resource management and difficulties in
addition, wef ranks its quality of air transport financing (Buhalis, 1994; Buhalis & Main,
infrastructure 67th; Italy is ranked 81st in terms 1998; Weiermair, 2000).
of international air transport network and
110th in terms of ground transportation net- Most of the tourism activity in Italy is gene-
work. The country, compared to some of the rated by the domestic demand which weights,
main competitors in Europe is lagging behind on average, 57% for arrivals during the pe-
in terms of recent transport infrastructure de- riod 1998-2007 (Massidda & Etzo, 2012).
velopment (oecd, 2011). oecd (2011) study Domestic travel spending generates 67.5%
on Italian tourism seems to confirm many of of direct tourism gdp in 2011 (wttc, 2012).
the indications emerging from the wef report. Short domestic trips in Italy represented 46%
of total holiday trips (Eurostat, 2010).
Italy ranks 2nd worldwide for accommoda-
tion capacity after the United States, and 1st Italy can count on thousands of touristic sites,
among European countries. The general pic- 4,739 museums, 393 archaeological sites,
135
y
SOCIEDAD

hundreds of medieval villages and historic • Blue Flag, awarded by Foundation for
churches, which are distributed all over the Environmental Education – fee (117 mu-
national territory (FareAmbiente 2011). Ne- nicipalities in the sample);
vertheless, tourist arrivals, especially interna-
tional tourists, are concentrated in big cities, • Blue Sail, awarded by Legambiente/
in the coastal areas, or in ski resort destina- League for the environment (295 muni-
tions. This is also due to the fact that many cipalities);
Italian regions have identified tourism as a
major industry for their economic develop- • Orange Flag, awarded by Italian Touring
ment, but «regional structures for developing Club (181 municipalities);
and promoting tourism products are often too
dispersed and they sometimes lack the capa- • The Most Beautiful Villages in Italy,
city to operate effectively on foreign markets. awarded by National Association of Ita-
(…) Evidence indicates that there is a lack of lian Municipalities – anci (199 munici-
clarity and co-ordination on promotion acti- palities).
vities between the government, regions, pro-
vinces and municipalities» (oecd, 2011: 17). The main aim of these awards is the promo-
tion of the diversity, value and authenticity
Due to the problems and weakness described of Italian destinations of excellence, both
above, combined with the increasing compe- coastal (“Blue Flags” and “Blue Sails”) and
tition of new destinations, Italy lost the top non coastal (“The Most Beautiful Villages”
position in the ranking of the most visited and “Orange Flags”). They are also aimed at
countries in the world that it held in 1970. establishing a platform for encouraging tou-
Formica & Uysal in 1996 stated that «the rism excellence in various forms.
life-cycle analysis reveals one important trend
that can lead Italy out of decline, a movement “Blue Flag” is an internationally recognized
towards a ‘high-qualitative learning’ type of voluntary eco-label run by the Foundation
tourism. The tendency toward this type of for Environmental Education (fee) that is
tourism is demonstrated by the growing inter- awarded to beaches and marinas that satisfy
est in green, rural and historically appealing stringent environmental quality standards
places. Italy’s landscapes and cultural places and management (fee, 2006); approximately
are in an excellent position to benefit from 3850 beaches and marinas in 46 countries we-
this trend» (Formica & Uysal, 1996). Many re awarded. In Italy, a roughly similar award,
small destinations located on the mainland namely the “Blue Sail”, was introduced by
still have high growth potentials in Italy. Si- Legambiente, the main environmental orga-
milar considerations can be extended to many nization in the country.
small and medium seaside destinations rich
in history and culture, where tourism is well The awards “The Most Beautiful Villages”
developed but highly seasonal. and “Orange Flags” are directed to small
towns and villages on the mainland not ex-
These above are the main reasons why 610 ceeding 15,000 inhabitants. Admission to the
Italian small and medium destinations of Club of “The most beautiful villages in Italy”
excellence were chosen as case study. Spe- requires the meeting of a number of prere-
cifically, destinations of excellence that have quisites, both structural, such as the quality
been awarded with important International of the public and private building heritage,
and National Certifications were selected: and general, regarding the quality of life in
the villages in terms of activities and services
136
y
SOCIEDAD

for the people. The “Orange Flag” is an Italian a hotel association, a hotel director was con-
recognized voluntary label that is awarded by tacted). They were first contacted by phone
Italian Touring Club to municipalities satis- to explain the objective of the study. A link
fying similar criteria to the above. to the web-survey was sent them after the
first contact.
5. Research methodology and results A total of 550 usable surveys were returned
from 370 different municipalities. The res-
In order to generate the desired empirical da- ponse rate was very high, 45,1%, in line with
ta, a survey instrument was created itemising the average response rates of similar studies
the elements that were supposed to influence (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). A principal com-
destination competitiveness. The data was ponent analysis (pca) was performed using
collected with a web survey. The web survey stata version 11.0 on the responses to the 64
required respondents to rate their own tou- questionnaire items measuring destination
rism destination’s performance, on a 5-point competitiveness. The most common approach
Likert scale, on each of the 64 competitive- is the Kaiser criterion that recommends to
ness indicators, against a reference group retain only components with a latent root or
of destinations. «It would be meaningless eigenvalue greater than 1. The final structure
to ask respondents to give absolute ratings was based on the Varimax rotation method.
for any destination on any given attribute of Finally, reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s
competitiveness» (Dwyer, Livaic, Mellor, Alpha) were also computed for the items
2003). This is motivated by the fact that a gi- that formed each component. The reliability
ven location is not competitive in a vacuum, coefficients exceeded the minimum standard
but against competing destinations (Kozac of 0.70 suggested by Nunnally (1978), Kli-
& Rimmington, 1999, Enright et. al., 1997; ne (1993) and Pallant (2001). Thus, the re-
Enright & Newton, 2005; Bahar & Ko- sults indicate that these multiple measures are
zac, 2007; Gomezelj & Mihalič, 2008). highly reliable for measuring each construct.
As a consequence, the web survey began by
asking respondents the identification of the Principal Component Analysis produced 13
main competitive locations (maximum 5). components which significantly explain the
variation in responses. They explain 69.66%
The questionnaire was pretested on five hotel of the total variance, which is reasonable for
managers, on five tourism researchers and on a dataset of this kind. Dwyer et al. (2004)
five head of tourism public offices. On the obtained similar results after applying a pca
basis of the pre-test, some indicators were to a similar set of indicators. First, it has to be
simplified and/or rewritten. The final draft taken into account the heterogeneity of the 64
of the model was screened by a panel of both variables that constitute the model. Second, it
academics and practitioners. has to be considered that the dataset is made
up of a mixed group of different destinations:
A total of 1.220 key tourist stakeholders from from small villages on the mainland, to well
610 Italian municipalities were contacted in known coastal resort destinations with tens
the period from April to July 2011. For each of hotels and thousands of tourist arrivals
destination two stakeholders, one from the every year.
public sector and one from the private sector,
were chosen: the head of the tourism office The 13 components produced by the pca are
and the head of the local hotel association (in discussed one by one below. The amount of
small tourism destinations, in the absence of the variance explained by each component is
137
y
SOCIEDAD

specified in parentheses. The indicators in- characteristics are connected with the concept
cluded in each component can be seen in the of responsible tourist behaviour.
column “pca solution” of the Tab.1.
Component 5: Managerial Competencies of
Component 1: Sustainable Tourism Policy Local Tourism Firms (3.28%). This compo-
and Destination Management (35.94%). The nent is associated with 4 variables comprising
first component consists of 17 variables, ac- the management capabilities and professional
counting by itself for a high percentage of the skills of the business operators, the use of IT
total variance. All these variables are included and the presence of local tourism firms.
in the 5th and 6th determinants of the model.
It includes indicators regarding an integrated Component 6: Destination Marketing
and sustainable approach to tourism planning. (2.99%). “Effectiveness of destination posi-
They refer to the collaboration in the decision- tioning”, “market segmentation” and “aware-
making process of tourism development and ness of the destination” are the three variables
to the emphasis on minimizing negative im- comprised by this component.
pacts of tourism on natural, cultural and social
resources. It also involves some destination Component 7: Quality of natural resources
management variables related to the steward- (2.73%). “Natural resources” and “environ-
ship of the natural environment and to the mental quality” are two of the three indica-
monitoring of the tourism impacts. tors included in this component; the attribute
“safety” is also included. A possible explana-
Component 2: General Infrastructures tion is that this element is probably interpreted
(5.06%). The second component comprises as the absence of natural calamities. This is
8 items, six of which lend themselves to the most likely related to the fact that security
infrastructure label (3rd determinant). This is not a problem in most of the destinations
component covers the road system and trans- surveyed.
portation, the communication system and the
medical care facilities and sanitation. It is Component 8: Gastronomy (2.29%). “Gas-
also composed by further attributes related tronomy and typical products” and “food
to general infrastructures: “accessibility of services quality” are two of the three variables
destination” and “proximity to other tourist incorporated in this component. The third va-
destinations”. riable, “local supply of goods” highlights the
association between authenticity of a tourism
Component 3: Events and Activities (3.56%). destination and local products and producers.
The third component contains 4 items: events,
leisure activities, nightlife and shopping. Component 9: Historical and Artistic Featu-
They are often the primary motivations res (1.93%). This component is represented
to visit a destination. This element can be by 3 variables: “historical and archaeological
significantly influenced by the destination sites”, “artistic and architectural features”,
management. “cultural attractors”.
Component 4: Responsible Tourist Behaviour Component 10: Price Competitiveness

(3.56%). The three indicators referring to this (1.88%). This component has been named
component are: “tourists’ interest in local “price competitiveness” and is represented by
heritage”, “tourists’ respect for local culture” three variables; two of them regard the value
and “environmental awareness”. These three for money of the tourism experience.
138
y
SOCIEDAD

Component 11: Visitor Satisfaction Mana- is interesting to notice that respondents do

gement (1.83%). It is interesting to note that not clearly distinguish between destination
the two variables “visitor satisfaction mana- management activities and tourism policy
gement” and “level of repeat visitors” make issues. They associate in their minds those
up this component. It seems to confirm that elements related to sustainability which are
the first element can influence the decision to affecting tourism policy-making and mana-
revisit a destination. gement processes.
Component 12: Tourist Accommodations They distinguish them from attributes clo-
(1.69%). This component refers to “quality”, sely linked to the marketing and to the visitor
“quantity” and “environmental friendliness” satisfaction management: these dimensions
of tourist accommodations. are included under two separate headings.
The “emphasis on maximising local econo-
Component 13: Emphasis on maximising mic development” is regarded as a distinct
local economic development (1.65%). This component from other tourism policy issues.
component includes three variables regarding This support the view that public sector com-
the public sector commitment to maximizing mitment on generating economic benefits for
economic impact of tourism on local com- locals is fundamental in order to increase the
munity. well-being of the residents. It implies that
both the optimal satisfaction of visitor needs
and economic wealth of the community have
Conclusions great importance. These determinants are
those over which public sector has a high
The paper has displayed a model of destina- degree of control.
tion competitiveness and discussed the results
of a survey, based on indicators associated Four components – “quality of natural resou-
with the model. The results of the principal rces”, “historical and artistic features”, “gas-
component analysis show a coherent struc- tronomy” and “events and activities” – refer
ture of the interrelations among the compe- to the first determinant of the model: “core
titiveness indicators. It seems to confirm the resources and key attractors”. Even if some
validity of the model. relationship may exist between these ele-
ments, this signifies that in the respondents’
The results show that 13 components can be minds there is a clear distinction of the types
extracted from the variables defined above. of primary resources. It could imply that not
Their structure is reasonably similar to the 7 only they need to be separately characterized
determinants of the model. It was not expec- and promoted, but that different marketing
ted that the pca would precisely reproduce strategies may also be implemented to reach
the same aggregation of the assumed model. each target consumer group.
As is common in pca, the first component The demand factor (7th determinant of the
comprises a large number of variables and is model) is represented by the component
fairly general. However, it strongly encom- “responsible tourist behaviour”. It implies
passes the tourism policy and destination that respondents clearly distinguish demand
management variables. This denotes that res- condition, along with other components, as
pondents display a distinction between tou- a crucial determinant of strategic decision
rism policy/management variables and other making.
measures of destination competitiveness. It
139
y
SOCIEDAD

The respondents also recognize the key role Baum, T. (1999). “Seasonality in tourism: unders-
played by “tourist accommodations” and tanding the challenges”, in Tourism Economics,
“general infrastructures”. They correspond Special Edition on Seasonality in Tourism, 5 (1):
to the 2nd and 3rd determinants of the model. 5-8.
“Tourist accommodation” is a primary factor
concerning the transferring of the value to the Boniface, P. (1995). Managing quality cultural
tourists, while general infrastructures provi- tourism. London, New York: Routledge.
de the foundations upon which a successful
tourism industry can be built. This last com- Bornhorst, T.; Ritchie, J.R.B. & Sheehan, L.
ponent is one of the essential prerequisites for (2010). “Determinants of tourism success for
a successful tourism destination. It is a sup- DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination
porting resource, along with the “managerial of stakeholders’ perspectives”, in Tourism Mana-
competencies of local tourism firms” and the gement, 31(5), 572-589.
“price competitiveness” of the destination.
Bowdin, G.; McDonnell, I.; Allen, J.; O’Toole,
They are also seen as distinctive components.
W. (2010). Events Management, 3rd edition.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
pca seems to confirm many of the considera-
tions emerged in previous tourism literature.
B riggs , S.; S utherland , J.; D rummond , S.
The model developed here can constitute
(2007). “Are hotel serving quality? An explana-
the starting point for additional empirical
tory study of service quality in the Scottish hotel
research.
sector”, in Tourism Management 28: 1006-1019.
Buhalis, D. (1994). “Information and Telecom-

References
munications Technologies as a strategic tool for
small and medium tourism enterprises in the con-
Ahmed, Z.U. (1991). “The Influence of the Com-
temporary business environment”, in Seaton, A.
ponents of a State’s Tourist Image on Product
(ed.) Tourism-The State of the Art: The Strathclyde
Positioning Strategy”, in Tourism Management,
Symposium, Wiley and Sons, London, 254-275.
December: 331-340.
Buhalis, D. (2000). “Marketing the Competitive
Allen, J., McDonnell, I. , O’Toole, W., Harris,
Destination of the Future”, in Tourism Manage-
R. (2008), Festival and Special Event Manage-
ment, 21, 97-116.
ment, Wiley.
Buhalis, D. & Cooper, C. (1998). “Competition
Bahar O. & Kozak M. (2007). “Advancing Des-
or Cooperation? ”, in E. Laws, B. Faulkner &
tination Com-petitiveness Research: Comparison
G. Moscardo (eds.), Embracing and Managing
Between Tourists and Service Providers”, en Jour-
Change in Tourism, Routledge, London.
nal of Travel Marketing, 22 (2), 61-71.
Buhalis, D. & Main, H. (1998). “Information
Baruch, Y. & Holtom, B. C. (2008). “Survey Technology in small and medium hospitality en-
response rate levels and trends in organizational terprises: Strategic analysis and critical factors”, in
research”, in Human Relations, 61.(8): 1139-1160. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, vol. 10, n.º 5, 198-202.
Baum, T. (1995). Managing Human Resources in
the European Tourism and Hospitality Industry: A Buhalis, D. & Costa, C. (2006). Tourism Mana-
Strategic Approach. London:Chapman and Hall. gement Dynamics: Trends, Management, Tools,
Oxford: Elsevier.
140
y
SOCIEDAD

Butler, R.W. (2000). “Tourism and the environ- Paper presented at Anzmac, Dudedin, New Zea-
ment: A geographical perspective”, in Tourism land, 3-5 December.
Geographies, 2(3): 337-58
Crouch, G. I. (2010). “Destination Competitive-
Choy, D. (1995). “The quality of tourism emplo- ness: An Analysis of Determinant Attributes”, in
yment”, in Tourism Management, 16 (2), 129-137. Journal of Travel Research, xx(x) 1-19.
Clarke, J. (1997). “A framework of Approaches Crouch, G. I. & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). “Tou-

to Sustainable Tourism”, in Journal of Sustainable rism, Competitiveness and Societal Prosperity”,
Tourism, 5:3, 224-233. in Journal of Business Research 44 (3), 137-152.
Cohen (1988). “Authenticity and commodifica- D’Harteserre, A. (2000). “Lessons in Manage-

tion in tourism”, in Annals of Tourism Research rial Destination Competitiveness in the case of
15 (2), 371-86. Foxwoods Casino Resort”, in Tourism Manage-
ment, 21(1), 23-32.
Cooper C.; Fletcher J.; Gilbert D.; Shepherd
R. & Wanhill, S. (1998). Tourism Principles and De Keyser, R. & Vanhove, N. (1994). “The
Practice. Addison, Wesley Longman Ltd, 2nd ed. competitive situation of tourism in the Caribbean
area – Methodological approach”, in Revue de
Cracolici M. F.; Nijkamp P. & Rietveld, P. Tourisme, 3, 19-22.
(2008). “Assessment of Tourism Competitiveness
by Analysing Destination Efficiency”, in Tourism Dwyer, L.; Forsyth P. & Rao, P. (2000), “The
Economics, 14 (2), 325-342. Price competitiveness of travel and tourism: a
comparison of 19 destinations”, in Tourism Ma-
Cracolici, M. F.; Nijkamp, P. (2006). “Competi- nagement, 21, 9-22.
tion among Tourist Destination. An Application of
Data Envelopment Analysis to Italian Provinces”, Dwyer, L. & Kim, C. (2003). “Destination com-
in Giaoutzi M. and Nijkamp P. (eds.), Tourism and petitiveness: Determinants and Indicators”, in
Regional Development: New Pathways, Ashgate, Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369-413.
Aldershot, uk.
Dwyer, L.; Livaic, Z. & Mellor, R. (2003).
Cracolici, M. F.; Nijkamp, P. (2008). “The at- “Competitiveness of Australia as a tourist des-
tractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destination”, in Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
tinations: A study of Southern Italian regions”, in Management, 10(1), 60-78.
Tourism Management, 30, 336-344.
Dwyer, L.; Mellor, R.; Livaic, Z.; Edwards,
Croes, R. (2010). “Measuring and Explaining D. & Kim, C. (2004). “Attributes of Destination
Competitiveness in the Context of Small Island Competitiveness: A Factor Analysis”, in Tourism
Destinations”, in Journal of Travel Research, Analysis, 9 (1-2), 91-101.
xx(x) 1-12.
Enright, M. J. & Newton, J. (2004). “Tourism
Crouch, G. I. (1992). “Effect of Income and Price Destination Competitiveness: A Quantitative Ap-
on international tourism”, in Annals of Tourism proach”, in Tourism Management, 25 (6), 777-788.
Research, 19 (4), 643-64.
Enright, M. J.; & Newton, J. (2005). “Determi-
Crouch, G. I. (2007). “Measuring Tourism Com- nants of Tourism Destination Competitiveness in
petitiveness: Research, Theory and the wef Index”.
141
y
SOCIEDAD

Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and Universali- Getz, D. (1986). “Models in tourism planning:
ty”, in Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4), 339-350. Towards integration of theory and practice”, in
Tourism Management 7 (1), 21-32.
European Union (2006). Sustainable tourism as
a factor of cohesion among European regions. Getz, D. (1987). “Tourism Planning and Research:
Committee of the Regions, Brussels. Traditions, Models and Futures”. Paper presented
at The Australian Travel Research Workshop, Bun-
Eurostat (2008). Labour Force Survey. Eurostat, bury, Western Australia, 5-6, november.
Luxembourg.
Getz, D. (1989). “Special events: Defining the
Eurostat (2010). Tourism Statistics in the European product”, in Tourism Management: 125-137.
Statistical System, 2008 data, Methodologies and
Working Papers. Eurostat, Luxembourg. Getz D. (1991). Festival, special events and tou-
rism, Virginian Nostrand Reinhold, ny.
Evans, M. R. & Chon, K. S. (1989). “Formulating
and evaluating tourism policy using importance- Getz D., (1997). Event Management and Event
performance analysis”, in Hospitality Education Tourism. New York: Cognizant. Communication
and Research Journal, 13(2), 203-213. Corporation.
FareAmbiente (2011). Rapporto Beni Culturali Global Environment Facility (1998). Valuing the
2011. Roma. Global Environment: Actions and Investment for a
21st Century. Washington, dc: World Bank Group.
Faulkner, B. (2003). Progressing Tourism Re-
search. Clevedon: Channel View Publications, Go, F. M.; Pine, R. & Yu, R. (1994). “Hong Kong:
Sustaining competitive advantage in Asia’s hotel
Faulkner B.; Opperman M. & Fredline, E. industry”, in Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admi-
(1999). “Destination Competitiveness: An Ex- nistration Quarterly, 35(5), 50-61.
ploratory Examination of South Australia’s Core
Attractions”, in Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5 Goeldner, C.R. & Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003), Tou-
(2), 125-139. rism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 9th ed.
ny: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Federalberghi (2010). Sesto Rapporto sul Sis-
tema Alberghiero in Italia 2010. Rome: Federal- Goffi, G.; Cucculelli, M. (2012). “Attributes of
berghi. Destination Competitiveness: the case of the Ita-
lian Destinations of Excellence”, in Proceedings
Fee (2006). Awards for Improving the Coastal En- of the icot 2012 Conference, Archanes, Crete,
vironment: The example of the Blue Flag. Copen- Greece 23-26 May.
hagen: Foundation for Environmental Education.
Gomezelj, D. O. & Mihalič, T. (2008). “Destina-
Flagestad, A. & Hope, C.A. (2001). “Strategic tion Competitiveness - Applying different models,
success in winter sports destinations: a sustainable the case of Slovenia”, in Tourism Management, 29
value creation perspective”, in Tourism Manage- (6), 294-307.
ment, vol. 22, p 445-461.
G ooroochurn , N. & S ugiyarto , G. (2005).
Formica, S. & Uysal, M. (1996). “The revitali- “Competitiveness indicators in the travel and
zation of Italy as a tourist destination”, in Tourism tourism industry”, in Tourism Economics 11:(1),
Management, 17(5), 323-331. pp. 25-43.
142
y
SOCIEDAD

Grabler, K. (1997). “Perceptual Mapping and Hughes, H (2000). Arts, entertainment and tou-
Positioning of Tourist Cities”, in J. A. Mazanec rism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.
(ed.) International City Tourism: Analysis and
Strategy, London: Pinter. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integra-
ted and sustainable development approach. New
Gunn , C. (2002). Tourism planning—Basics, York: Wiley.
concepts, cases (4th ed.), New York: Taylor &
Francis Books. Istat (2011). Capacity of accommodation facili-
ties. Rome: National Institute of Statistics.
Haahti, A. & Yavas, U. (1983). “Tourists’ percep-
tions of Finland and selected European countries Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1991). “Leisure shopping:
as travel destinations”, in European Journal of A magic concept for the tourism industry?”, in
Marketing 17, 34-42. Tourism Management, vol. 12, n.º 1, pp. 9-14 .
Hall, C. M. (1987). “The Effects of Hallmark Kaul, R. (ed.) (1985). Dynamics of Tourism: A
Events on Cities”, in Journal of Travel Research. Trilogy. Transportation and Marketing (Vol. 3).
26 (2): 44-5. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Hall, C. M. (1992). Hallmark Tourist Events, Kaynak, E. & Marandu, E. E. (2007). “Tourism
Impact, Management, Planning. London: Belha- Market Potential Analysis in Botswana: A Delphi
ven Press. Study”, in Journal of Travel Research, november
45: 227-237.
Hall, C.M. (2000). Tourism Planning: Policies,
Processes and Relationships. Harlow: Prentice Khadaroo, J. & Seetanah, B. (2007). “Trans-
Hall. port Infrastructure and Tourism Development”,
in Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 34, n.º 4, pp.
Hassan, Salah S. (2000), “Determinants of Mar- 1021-1032.
ket Competitiveness in an Environmentally Sus-
tainable Tourism Industry”, in Journal of Travel Kline P. (1993). The Handbook of Psychological
Research, 38 (3), 239-245. Testing. London: Routledge.
Heath, E. & Wall, G. (1992) Marketing Tourism Kozak, M. & Rimmington, M. (1998)- “Ben-
Destinations: A Strategic Planning Approach. chmarking: Destination attractiveness and small
Canada: John Wiley and Sons. hospitality business performance”, in International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Heath, E. (2002). “Towards a Model to Enhance 10:(5), pp. 184-188.
Destination Competitiveness: A Southern African
Perspective”, in Journal of Hospitality and Tou- Kozak, M. & Rimmington, M. (1999). “Mea-
rism Management, 10 (2), 124-141. suring tourist destination competitiveness: Con-
ceptual considerations and empirical findings”, in
Heraty, M.J. (1989). “Tourism transport: Im- International Journal of Hospitality Management
plications for developing countries”, in Tourism 18:(3), pp. 273-283
Management, 10 (4): 288-92.
Kozak, M. & Baloglu, S. (2010). Managing
Hjalager A.-M. & Richards, G. (2002). Tou- and marketing tourist destinations. Strategies to
rism and Gastronomy, London and New York: gain a competitive edge. New York: Routledge
Routledge. Publishing House.
143
y
SOCIEDAD

Krippendorf, J. (1987). The Holiday Makers: Moutinho L. (ed.) (2000). Strategic Management
Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. in Tourism. Wallingford: cabi Publishing.
London: William Heinemann.
Müller, H (1994). “The thorny path to sustainable
Laws, E. (1995). Tourist Destination Management. tourism development”, in Journal of Sustainable
Issues, Analysis and Policies. London, New York: Tourism, 2:3, 131-136.
Routledge.
Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A Community Ap-
Mason, P. & Mowforth, M. (1996). “Codes of proach. New York: Methuen.
conducts in tourism”, in Progress in Tourism and
hospitality Research, 2 (2): 151-67. Murphy, P.; Pritchard, M. P. & Smith, B. (2000).
“The destination product and its impact on tra-
Massidda C., Etzo I. (2012). “The determinants veller perceptions”, in Tourism Management 21
of Italian domestic tourism: a panel data analysis”, (1) 43-52.
in Tourism Management, 33: 603-610.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd
Mazanec, J.A.; Wober, K. & Zins, A.H.(2007). ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
“Tourism destination competitiveness: From
definition to explanation?”, in Journal of Travel oecd (2010). oecd Tourism Trends and Policies
Research 46:(1), pp. 86-95. 2010, oecd Publishing.
Mazanec, J.A.; Crouch, G.I.; Ritchie, J.R.B. & oecd (2011). “oecd Studies on Tourism: Italy”, in
Woodside, A.G. (eds.) (2001), Consumer Psy- Review of Issues and Policies. oecd Publishing.
chology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, vol.
2. cab International. Page, S.J. (2003). Tourism Management: Mana-
ging for Change, Oxford: Elsevier. Butterworth-
McKercher, B., Du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural Heinemann.
Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and
Cultural Heritage Management. New York: Ha- Pallant, J. (2001). spss Survival Manual: a step
yworth Hospitality Press. by step guide to data analysis using spss (Version
10). Buchingam: Open University Press.
Middleton, V.T.C. & Hawkins, R. (1998). Sustai-
nable Tourism: a Marketing Perspective. Oxford: Pearce, D. G. (1981). Tourist development. Topics
Butterworth Heinemann. in applied geography. Harlow: Longman.
Mihalič, T. (2000). “Environmental manage- Pike, S. & Ryan, C. (2004). “Destination positio-
ment of a tourist destination: a factor of tourism ning analysis through a comparison of cognitive,
competitiveness”, in Tourism management, vol. affective, and conative perceptions”, in Journal of
21, (1) 65-78. Travel Research, 42(4), 333-342.
Miller G. (2001). “The Development of Indica- Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, Technology and Com-
tors for Sustainable Tourism: Results of a Delphi petitive Strategies, cab International, Wallingford,
Survey of Tourism Researchers”, in Tourism Ma- uk.
nagement, 22 (4), pp. 351-362.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage.
Mintel (2004). European Hotel Chain Expansion, New York: The Free Press.
Travel & Tourism Analyst, May 2004, London.
144
y
SOCIEDAD

Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive advantage Ritchie, J. R. B. & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The
of Nations. New York: The Free Press. competitive destination, a sustainable tourism
perspective. Cambridge: Cabi Publishing.
Prentice, R. (1993). Heritage consumers in the
leisure market: An application of the Manning- Ritchie, J.R.B. & Zins, M. (1978). “Culture as
Haas demand hierarchy. Leisure Sciences, 273- determinant of attractiveness of a tourism region”,
290. in Annals of Tourism Research 5, 252-267.
Prideaux, B. (2000), “The Role of the Transport Ritchie, J.R.B.; Crouch, G.I. & Hudson, S.
System in Destination Development”, in Tourism (2001). “Developing operational measures for
Management 21:53-63. the components of a destination competitiveness/
sustainability model: Consumer versus managerial
Qu, H.; Ryan, B. & Chu, R. (2000). “The im- perspectives”, in Mazanec J.A. et. al, Tourism,
portance of hotel attributes in contributing to Hospitality and Leisure, 2. Ed. cab International,
travellers’ satisfaction in the Hong Kong hotel Wallingford.
industry”, in Journal of Quality Assurance in Hos-
pitality & Tourism, 1(3), 65-83. Robinson, P.; Wale, D. & Dickson, G. (2010).
Events Management. Wallingford: cabi.
Raj, R.; Walters, P. & Rashid, T. (2008). Events
Management: An Integrated and Practical Ap- Sainaghi, R. (2006). “From Contents to Processes:
proach. London: Sage. Versus a Dynamic Destination Management Model
(ddmm)”, in Tourism Management, 27: 1053-1063.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political
Economy and Taxation, London: John Murray (3rd Sargeant, A. & Mohamad, M. (1999). “Business
ed., 1821). performance in the uk hotel sector: Does it pay to
be market-oriented?”, in The Services Industry
Richards, G. (ed.) (1996). Cultural Tourism in Journal, 19(3), 42-59.
Europe. Wallingford: cabi.
Schmitt, M. (1996). “Uses and abuses of coeffi-
R ichards G. (ed) (2007). Cultural Tourism: cient alpha”. Psychological Assessment, 8(4),
Global and Local Perspectives. New York: The 350-353
Haworth Press, Inc.
Sedmak, G. & Mihalič, T. (2008). “Authenticity
Richards, G. & Munsters, W. (2010). Cultural in mature seaside resorts”, in Annals of Tourism
Tourism Research Methods. Wallingford: cabi. Research (35), 1007-1031.
Rimmington, M. & Kozak, M. (1997). “Develop- Sharpley, R. (1994). Tourism, tourists and socie-
ments in Information Technology: Implication for ty. Huntingdon: elm Publications.
the Tourism Industry and Tourism Marketing”, in
Anatolia, an International Journal of Tourism and Shone, A. & Parry, B. (2001). Successful Event
Hospitality Research, 8 (3), 59-80. Management. London: Continuum.
Ritchie, J. R. B. & Crouch, G. I. (2000). “The Sigala, M. & D. Leslie (2005). International
competitive destination, a sustainable perspecti- Cultural Tourism: Management, Implications and
ve”, in Tourism Management, 21(1), 1-7. Cases. Oxfor: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
145
y
SOCIEDAD

Sirše, J. & Mihalič, T. (1999). “Slovenian tou- unwto (1998). Guide for Local Authorities on
rism and tourism policy-a case study”, in Revue Developing Sustainable Tourism. Madrid: World
de Tourisme, 3, 34-47. Tourism Organization.
Smith, M. (2009). Issues in Cultural Tourism Stu- unwto (1999). Sustainable development of tou-
dies. 2. rev. edition. London: Routledge. rism: an annotated bibliography. Madrid: World
Tourism Organization.
Smith M. (2003). Issues in Cultural Tourism Stu-
dies. London: Routledge. unwto (2000). Public-Private sector cooperation.
Enhancing tourism competitiveness. Madrid: Uni-
Smith, M. & Robinson, M., (eds.) (2006). Cultu- ted Nations World Tourism Organization.
ral Tourism in a Changing World. Clevedon, u.k.
unwto (2004). Indicators of sustainable deve-
Sonmez, S. F. & A. R. Graefe (1998). “Deter- lopment for tourism destinations: a guidebook.
mining Future Travel Behavior from Past Travel Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
Experience and Perceptions of Risk and Safety”, in
Journal of Travel Research, 37: 171-177. unwto (2012). Tourism Highlights. United Na-
tions World Tourism Organization. 2012 Edition.
Stabell, C. B. & Fjeldstad, D. (1996). “Va-
lue configuring for competitive advantage: On Van der Wagen, L. (2002). Event Management:
chains, shops and networks” (discussion paper For Tourism, Cultural, Business and Sporting
1996/9). Sandvika, Norway: Norwegian School Events. Melbourne: Hospitality Press.
of Management.
Wall, G. & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism:
Stabell, C. B. & Fjeldstad, D. (1998). “Confi- change, impacts and opportunities. England: Pear-
guring value for competitive advantage: On chains, son. Education Limited.
shops, and networks”, in Strategic Management
Journal, 19(5), 413-437. Walle, A. (1998). Cultural tourism: A strategic
focus. Boulder, co: Westview Press.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism
Management. cab International, Wallingford, UK. Wang, Y. & Pizam, A. (Eds.) (2011). Destination
Marketing and Management. Theories and Appli-
Timothy, D. (2005), Shopping Tourism, Retailing cations, Cambridge: Cabi Publishing.
And Leisure, Channel View Publications, Cleve-
don, UK. Weaver, D.B. & Lawton, L.J. (2006). Tourism
Management. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley &
Tsai H., Song H. Wong (2009), “Tourism and Ho- Sons Australia.
tel Competitiveness Research”, Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 26: 5, 522-546. wecd (1987). Report of the World Commission on
Environ-ment and Development: Our Common
Tsang, N., & Qu, H. (2000). “Service quality in Future, Oxford University Press.
China’s hotel industry: A perspective from tourists
and hotel managers”, in International Journal of wef (2013). The Travel & Tourism Competitive-
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(5), ness Report 2011, World Economic Forum, 2013,
316-335. Geneva.
146
y
SOCIEDAD

Weiermair, K. (2000). “Know-how and quali- Yeoman, I.; Robertson, M.; Ali-Knight, J.;
fication gaps in the tourism industry: the case of Drummond, S. & McMahon-Beattie, U. (eds.)
alpine tourism in Austria”, in The Tourist Review, (2003). Festival and Events Management: An In-
vol. 2, n.º 45-53. ternational Arts and Culture Perspective. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wilkie, W.L. (1986). Consumer Behaviour. New
York: John Wiley. Zhang H.; Gu Chao-lin; Gu Lu-wen; Zhang
Y (2011). “The evaluation of tourism destination
wttc (2012). Travel & Tourism, Economic Impact competitiveness by Topsis & information entropy.
2012, Italy. London: World Travel and Tourism A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China”, in
Council. Tourism Management 32, 443-451.
147
y
SOCIEDAD

A Model of Tourism Destination Competitiveness1 - The Case of The Italian Destinations of Exc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Model of Tourism Destination Competitiveness1 - The Case of The Italian Destinations of Exc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turismo y Sociedad

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=576261184008

that considers the different issues concerning

Keywords: Tourism Destination, Deter-

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 121 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 122 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 123 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 124 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Fig. 1 Competitiveness and sustainability of a tourism destination: a model of evaluation

Primary activities 1. CORE RESOURCES

4. CONDITIONING AND 3. GENERAL

Source: adapted from Ritchie & Crouch (2000)

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 125 5/6/14 12:02 PM

veness of a tourism destination, as shown in Determinants and indicators PCA solution

as suggested by Miller (2001). 2) TOURISM SERVICES

Newton, 2004; Gomezelj & Mihalič, 2008) Tourist oriented services

Natural resources 7 Value for money in accommodations 10

Historical and archaeological sites 9 Presence of local businesses 5

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 126 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Management capabilities of tourism Effective market segmentation 6

Local supply of goods and services to Tourist destination communication 1

5) TOURISM POLICY, PLANNING AND Effectiveness of destination manage-

Political commitment to tourism 1 Promotion of partnerships between

Public sector commitment to maximi- Awareness of destination 6

Public sector commitment to tourism/

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 127 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Events, leisure activities, nightlife and shop- 3.2 Tourism Services

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 128 5/6/14 12:02 PM

of tourist accommodations, “food service in less developed countries or regions, which

3.3 General Infrastructures 3.4 Conditioning and Supporting

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 129 5/6/14 12:02 PM

determinants of destination competitiveness. realized». Page (2005) examines the ques-

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 130 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 131 5/6/14 12:02 PM

and capability of the people working in the 3.6 Destination Management

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 132 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 133 5/6/14 12:02 PM

gives an incomplete picture of destination sonality in a destination by listing various

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 134 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 135 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 136 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 137 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Component 4: Responsible Tourist Behaviour Component 10: Price Competitiveness

Anuario Turismo y Sociedad, vol. xiv, noviembre 2013, pp. 121-147

pi Anuario Turismo y Sociedad-Vol 14_final.indb 138 5/6/14 12:02 PM

Component 11: Visitor Satisfaction Mana- is interesting to notice that respondents do