Destination Management Case Studies
Tasks
Format of your choice
Compare two destinations from the Winter Study Tour with regard to their destination leadership on the basis of the article by Blichfeldt et al. (2014):
-
What role does the DMO play? On what is their power and assertiveness based on? Are there other important actors and how do they assert themselves?
-
What are the differences and challenges between the two destinations?
Scientific reflection
Please illustrate the scientific research process of the paper Blichfeldt et al. (2014) by summarizing the key aspects. Reflect the process critically by considering the criteria of academic working. Go to reflection
Magazine article
Scientific reflection
Destination leadership and the issue of power
Blichtfeldt, Hird and Kvistgaard (2014) shows the continuous fight for power within the politics of tourism in many different settings and state that these fights are not only limited geographically but also on within social relations and interactions. Social relations and social interactions among stakeholders within the destinations are directly connected to the development of the destination. The authors have looked closer into the effect power has within DMOs, its leadership in the destinations themselves. Through a sum-up of their work-life experience have they summed up a series of vignettes that shows the issue of power and the effects of the politics in tourism. It is pointed out how power can intertwine with the leadership of the destinations.
Destinations are as organisation very complex and self-serving and it has been argued that a top down approach in branding of a destination have a higher risk to fail, bottom up organisations are more likely to succeed. Blichtfeldt et al (2014) illustrates with their vignettes how decision making can be especially troublesome in destinations, as the destination is dependent on its stakeholders, local organisation and governments participation to, for example, be able to start new projects. Seeing DMO’s as organisations with power and expect DMO’s to lead actors in certain directions does not often match the reality whereas DMO’s should have more of a role of forming coalition, networks and groups. Also, to help the weaker or smaller actors to have the ability to influence stronger actors in the destination. One example is being given where local food producers and restaurants that form a food network who as a group can influence the DMO to produce for example food trails or to include foodies as a target group.
Power can due to money swift between organisations and DMO’s, this for example can be when money is being given for certain projects. The power is most certain to swift again as soon as the project is over. Power can also be knowledge-based, so for a DMO that is seen as an expert will also be more valued from the other in the network and therefore also gain more power. Expert knowledge can swift as quick as money, so it is important for the DMO to stay up to date.
Personal reflection
The article from Blichtfeldt et al (2014) has a slightly different structure to other typical academic article as it mixes the empirical and the theoretical parts throughout the article instead of introducing them separately. This makes the reading lighter as it is easier to follow the red line which also makes it more difficult to keep the theory from the empery. Blichfelt et al (2014) have chosen a different qualitative method where vignettes are used as empirical arguments, even though the vignette makes it easier to relate and supports the theoretical statements are the vignettes still weak empirical material as it lacks sources and details to defend its trustworthiness.
Blichfeldt, B. S., Hird, J. & Kvistgaard, P. (2014). Destination leadership and the issue of power. Tourism Review, 69/1, 74-86.