Destination management Focus on destination

competitiveness
Based on the article:

Zehrer, A. & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of

destination competitiveness. Journal of destination marketing & management, 4, 120
126.

Destination competitiveness has become more important in todays world (Pechlaner

& Tschurtschentaler, 2003, as cited in Zehrer & Hallman, 2015), and the
competitiveness itself relates to several influencing factors including resources,
destination management, demand, situational conditions and destination policy and
planning (Zehrer & Hallman, 2015). There are two types of tourism destination
structures: community and corporate model. In Austria and Switzerland we mostly
have community destinations who try to increase their competitiveness by active co-
operation and by building networks between all stakeholders (Flagestad & Hope, 2001,
as cited in Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015). According to Eurostat (2002) the stakeholders or
businesses in community model are mainly private entrepreneurs who act
independently within the destination, and of which no stakeholder has any dominant
administrative power (as cited in Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015).

Bieger (2005) said that in community model destinations, DMO is seen as being
responsible of marketing and policy, in which decisions and planning are made upon
stakeholder collaboration (as cited in Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015). Most of the studies
about destination competitiveness have focused on the (public) supply side of the
destination and only few in examining the differences in stakeholders view. Based on
the facts above, Zehrer and Hallmann (2015) could see a research gap and wanted to
find out from private entrepreneurs perspective (DMO, hotels, restaurants,
transportation, retail, sport activity suppliers) which factors of competitiveness they
could identify and if these entrepreneurs perceive competitiveness differently. As
mentioned above, there are several factors influencing destination competitiveness
but the authors suggest that competitiveness is determined in first place by
destination policy and planning issues. Thus, there are two important research
questions that Zehrer and Hallmann (2015) set: 1) Which policy and planning factors
influence destination competitiveness in community-type destinations? and 2) To what
extend do stakeholder groups differ in their perception of destination
competitiveness?

There are several destination policy issues that can be identified and that were used
as measures in the study. These eight measures taken from Ritchie & Crouch (2003)
were philosophy, vision, development, collaborative analysis, monitoring,
interdependencies, market ties and tourism superstructure (as cited in Zehrer and
Hallmann, 2015). The method Zehrer and Hallmann (2015) chose in the study was
quantitative research design and they used self-administrated questionnaire to collect
the data. In the questionnaire the above-mentioned eight items were operationalized
according to literature, and measured using a five-point Likert scale (1=disagree
completely to 5=agree completely). In addition, the respondents were asked to tell
their field of work (7 stakeholder groups). Stakeholders perception of the overall
competitiveness was measured using a binary variable. The data was gathered from
December 2010 to March 2011 in 11 Alpine tourism destinations in Austria and
Switzerland. Due to high season, convenience sampling method was used and
stakeholders filled out the questionnaires in their own working environment.

Before starting to analyze the results of 1286 questionnaires, the data was first
checked for potential data-entry errors and after a summary statistics was done. To
measure the impact of policy issues among stakeholder groups, logistic regression
analysis model was used. In this regard, vision, development, monitoring,
interdependencies and market ties showed a positive and significant contribution to
the model. Regarding the overall competitiveness by stakeholders, only retail
significantly influenced the competitiveness but the effect was not so strong.
Therefore, it shows that perceived competitiveness doesnt vary much between
stakeholder groups and that entrepreneurs are already connected and aware of their
responsibility in developing the destination further (Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015).

All in all, we can agree that enhancing competitiveness is crucial for the survival of
tourism destination. DMO is usually in the destination the coordinator who delivers
tourism product to the client, but because of the complicated nature of tourism
product and diverse range of stakeholders, co-operation and information exchange
among the stakeholder groups plays an essential role (Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015). The
study shows that interdependencies between stakeholders and tourists were
considered the most important factor impacting destination competitiveness. This
should be clear to every destination; without understanding listening to your
customers, it is impossible to provide a good experience for the tourists. This goes
together with the factor vision that showed great impact in the study and focused on
tourist values. Every stakeholder should be able to provide value to the customer and
maximize their experience. And how about monitoring? It is so important to know if
your customers were satisfied and listen to their feedback in order to further develop
the destination. So lastly, development. There is different know-how in the various
stakeholder groups and it would be optional for the product and service development
if this valuable information could be mutually exchanged. Innovations should be
encouraged because in this cooperation also costs could be shared and unnecessary
duplication of effort reduced.

REFERENCES:

Bieger, T. (2005). Management Von Destinationen. Mnchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.

Eurostat (2002). Smes in Europe: Competitiveness, innovation and the knowledge-

driven society. Data 1996-2001. Theme 4: Industry, trade and services. Luxembourg:
European Communities.

Flagestad, A., & Hope, C. A. (2001). Strategic success in winter sports destinations: A
sustainable value creation perspective. Tourism Management, 22 (5), 445 461.

Pechlaner, H., & Tschurtschenthaler, P. (2003). Tourism policy, tourism organisations

and change management in Alpine regions and destinations: An European perspective.
Current Issues in Tourism, 6 (6), 508 539.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable
tourism perspective. Oxon: CABI Publishing

Zehrer, A. & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of

destination competitiveness. Journal of destination marketing & management 4, 120
126.