THE PERFORMANCE OF A TOURISM DESTINATION.

WHO MANAGES THE DESTINATION?

WHO PLAYS THE AUDIT ROLE?

Angelo Presenza
University of Molise - Department of Economics, Management and Social Science
Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy
Tel. +39 0874 404484 - Fax +39 0874 98043
e-mail: presenza@unimol.it

Abstract

This paper examines the different aspects of the tourism destination by investigating the relationship
between local government authorities, destination management organizations, and destination
auditors.
It aims to describe the particular role of the destination audit, while acknowledging that destination
management is an important component of tourism destination.
A case study approach is adopted based on an Italian destination named Abruzzo Region.
The analysis of this tourism destination has highlighted how some Italian tourism destinations are
interpreting the destination audit concept to create specific organizations that are called
“Osservatorio Turistico Regionale”. The first findings of this research suggest that the destination
growth is influenced by different levels of complexity. The complexity is related to the large number of
players, the influences between different sectors, the stakeholder relationship dynamics, and the
interactions between different levels of governance. In this regard, the Osservatorio Turistico
Regionale can represent a good tool for a comprehensive, systematic, and periodic data-elaboration
in addition to reducing the tourism’s complexity.

1. INTRODUCTION

The tourism’s sector has increased in complexity. This is also confirmed by the problems that are
derived from the collection and elaboration of vast amounts of information.
For many years, the tourism destination has developed in an uncontrolled manner. However, the
increasing competition requires a different approach based on an integrated sustainable development.
In this regard, the destination competitiveness depends both on the capacity to develop adequate
destination management and marketing strategies, and efficacy tools for the destination audit.
A number of studies have already addressed concepts concerning the destination audit (Ritchie and
Crouch, 2003; Woodside and Sakai, 2001). No empirical study has developed an integrative model
capable of investigating the destination competitiveness of an area by examining different types of
destination auditors.
This paper examines the contribution of the destination audit to the efficacy and efficient management
of the tourism destination. With this objective in mind, the relationships that exist between the
activities of the Destination Management Organization and the Performance Auditor has been
investigated. This work has been supported by the analysis of the Abruzzo Region (Italy).

Page 1 of 14
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In recent years, the tourism destination has begun to play an important place in the tourism literature.
Some authors (Leiper, 1995, Martini, 2001 and Pechlaner, 2000) that have studied the tourism
destination from a demand perspective, identify a destination as a set of products, services, natural and
artificial attractions able to draw tourists to a specific place, where the geographical location is simply
one of the factors that comprises a destination.
Tamma (2001) and Brunetti (2001) define destination as a supply system correlated with a specific
area. Some destinations are artificially determined by political jurisdictions which fail to take into
consideration consumer preferences or tourism industry functions. For example, the Alps are shared
by France, Austria, Switzerland and Italy, but are often perceived and consumed as part of the same
product by skiers (Buhalis, 2000). Keller (2000) adds that people often use region, district, area, and
locality as synonyms together with the adjective tourism to mean tourism destination.
Buhalis (2000) claims that destinations are amalgamations of tourism products offering an integrated
experience to consumers. Based on the various models of tourism development outlined by Pearce
(1992), it is sensible to define a destination as an combination of products and services available in
one location that can draw visitors from beyond its spatial confines. Hu and Ritchie (1993:26)
conceptualised it as “a package of tourism facilities and services, which like any other consumer
product, is composed of a number of multi-dimensional attributes”. Other authors (Bieger, 2000)
define the tourism destination as the tourist product that in certain markets competes with other
products.
All of the elements that shape a tourism destination are influenced by the role of companies’ attitudes
and their willingness to co-operate (Fyall, Oakley, Weiss, 2000; de Araujo, Bramwell, 2002).
By implication, we must then recognize that the destination is an entity whose component parts are
interdependent whereby a change in one has ramifications for all of the others.
There are different studies that analyse the elements that influence the performance of the destination.
Some studies specifically examine categories within the supply system (such as small businesses in the
case of Tinsley and Lynch, 2001), while other still highlight the critical role played by the actors that
manage tourism destinations (Kerr, Barron, Wood, 2001). Destinations present complex challenges for
management and development in that they must serve a broad range of the tourist’s needs and the
tourism-related businesses as well as the resident community, local businesses, and industries (Howie,
2003).
It is also important to clarify and emphasize the important distinctions that exist between destination
policy, planning and development (DPPD), destination management organization (DMO), and
destination audit (DA).
Although all seek to improve the competitiveness and sustainability of the destination, they differ
fundamentally in that DPPD is essentially and intellectual process that uses information and
judgement to make macro-level decisions regarding the kind of destination that stakeholders want.
In the awareness that the potential competitiveness of a destination is influenced or limited by the
relationships between these three forces, this paper will focus on the main “functions” that the last two
forces – DMO and DA - play on the development of the destination.

3. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TOURISM DESTINATION: PLAYERS AND THEIR

ROLE

3.1. The future of Destination Management Organization (DMO) and its role on destination
competitiveness

Traditionally, DMOs have been defined as destination marketing organizations, however, in the last
years, by recognizing that marketing remains the principal purview, there has been an important shift
of the DMO’s role from the only-marketing orientation to a complete management orientation. It
describes the DMO as a "destination developer" by acting as a catalyst and a facilitator for the
realization of tourism development from a competitive and sustainable perspective.

Page 2 of 14
Martini and Franch (2002:5) define destination management as “the strategic, organizational and
operative decisions taken to manage the process of definition, promotion and commercialisation of the
tourism product [originating from within the destination], to generate manageable flows of incoming
tourists that are balanced, sustainable and sufficient to meet the economic needs of the local actors
involved in the destination”.
In particular, the WTO (2004) defines DMO as the organization responsible for the management and
marketing of destinations.
Morrison, Bruen, and Anderson, (1998) propose five main functions of a DMO:
- an “economic driver” generating new income, employment, and taxes contributing to a more
diversified local economy;
- a “community marketer” communicating the most appropriate destination image, attractions, and
facilities to selected visitor markets;
- an “industry coordinator” providing a clear focus and encouraging less industry fragmentation so
as to share in the growing benefits of tourism;
- a “quasi-public representative” adding legitimacy for the industry and protection to individual and
group visitors;
- a “builder of community pride” by enhancing quality of life and acting as the chief “flag carrier”
for residents and visitors alike.
The analysis of the DMO shows a range of activities that go from a marketing or promotion
orientation to one that suggest broader efforts related to the development of the destination.
Heath and Wall (1992) argue that DMOs have acknowledged how significant their non-marketing
activities are in developing, enhancing and maintaining destination competitiveness and notes that
DMO tasks are the following: strategy formulation, representing the interests of stakeholders,
marketing of the destination, and co-ordination of some activities. The figure 1 summarizes the main
activities of the DMOs.

Visitor Servicing Resource

Information/ Research
(information centres) Stewardship

Quality of the Human Resources Finance and

Coordinating Tourism Stakeholders

Visitor Experience Development Venture Capital Crises Management

Web marketing

Publication Familiarization
Sales blitzes Trade shows
& Brochures Tours

Cooperative Conferences,
Direct sales Direct mail
Programs Events, Festivals

Advertising

Figure 1. The fundamental activities of the DMO: a conceptual model (source: author).

Page 3 of 14
The tourism stakeholder is any entity that is influenced by or that may influence the achievement of
the destination management activities as performed by the DMO.
Sheehan and Ritchie (2005) have identified 32 tourism stakeholders and they have demonstrated how
important it is to understand the stakeholders for the DMO to achieve its objectives.
While all of their stakeholders were identified (by Sheehan and Ritchie), the most important ones
according to DMO executives were: hotels, government (at different levels), attractions, board of
directors (of the DMO), convention centres, DMO members, residents, restaurants, Universities and
colleges, local chambers of commerce, and sponsors.
Coordinating tourism stakeholders represents a core competency of the DMOs in achieving their
success. The number and quality of relationships between the DMOs and the tourism destination
stakeholders can mobilise the necessary resources to be effective.
The destination crisis management is an emerging research field within the tourism literature.
Every DMO should consider the possibility of a disaster at some stage in the future and it is crucial for
them to build up the capability to anticipate and address the broad range of crises that could threaten
the destination. Pike (2004: 174) suggested some key activities that DMOs should consider: the
formation of a permanent disaster taskforce, scenario building and risk analysis, coordinated
marketing responses, market concentration, outsourcing of media relations, and initiatives to support
local business.
Sustainable tourism has been defined by the World Tourism Organization (1993) as that which: “
meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for
the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic,
social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, biological diversity and life support systems”. In this regard, the role of the DMO consists
of implementing the management practices and creating plans that are designed to control tourism
development and activity.
The primary purpose of a stewardship management activity involves the adoption of “best practices”,
those corrective measures or improvements that are implemented in each and every one of
administration, management and operation of all tourism business. The goal of these actions is to
guarantee the least impact possible, improve tourism product quality and client image, and to make
entrepreneurial development and, therefore, their socio-economic performance more efficient.
Effective and efficient finance assistance and access venture capital politics play an important role in
the development of the destination. DMO may provide valuable insight into the future growth of
tourism demand in the destination and the specific tourism product and superstructure needs. This
activity attempts to assist the private sector operators with regards to sources of capital and to promote
potential investments in the local tourism industry to venture capitalists. The DMO can be a venture
capital broker helping venture capitalists to identify potential investments while also helping operators
and developers access sources of capital, like, for example, an interesting action built up from Abruzzo
Promozione Turismo (an Italian DMO described in the following paragraph) where the scope is to
promote to foreign investors the purchase, the restructure, and the requalification of the regional
historical-architectonic patrimony in order to upgrade the tourism supply.
As one of the main (and typical) of DMOs, visitor management (visitor servicing) is important in
communicating the supply of tourism products and services in the destination to visitors. It also
represents the ability to communicate effectively to the visitor upon arrival in the destination.
Information/Research supports all activities of the DMO and specifically fulfils an intelligence
function that allows the DMO to understand market demands, current industry supply, and the gaps
that need to be addressed through planning and development. Information/research is necessary to
support the decisions and actions taken within all of the other activities.
The Human Resources Development activity consists of achieving all of the possibilities that can
improve the skills of the employees in all visitor facilities, at all levels within tourism organizations
(from front line service providers to senior executives), and for all demographic groups (from school
children to career changers).

Page 4 of 14
While it is rare that a DMO would have any direct control over the provision of education and training
services, it may certainly exert political influence through its stakeholder network to ensure the
provision of such services and, perhaps, the quality (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003:211).
The development of a competitive and sustainable destination requires more than a simple provision
for visitor services. The overall visitor experience will be reflective of all the separate visitor
experiences within the travel experience chain. For this reason, the quality of the visitor experience is
derived from all of the DMOs efforts. An audit of the quality of the destination experience along with
visitor satisfaction surveys would be examples of initiatives that would support this activity.
Destination marketing activities facilitates the achievement of tourism policy which should be co-
ordinated with the destination development strategic plan. Marketing of destinations should also drive
the tourism impacts optimizing and maximizing the benefits for the region.
Although the owners of the tourism resources and attractions and the intermediary channel are the
primary players for selling tourism products and services for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness, it
is possible to consider the DMO as “managing” the selling of a destination as a whole in the broader
sense.
A wide spectrum of destination marketing tools provide plentiful references for researchers who
would like to study each technique in-depth. These tools are: Trade shows, Advertising,
Familiarization tours, Publication & Brochures, Events & Festivals, Cooperative Programs Direct
Mail, Direct Sales, Sales Blitzes, Web Marketing.
These operational marketing activities are put in place after the strategic marketing activities of image
definition, branding, and positioning have been completed.
Advertising utilizes various forms of media. Consumer advertising utilizes print, television, radio,
outdoor, and, now, Internet media, while trade advertising occurs in specific travel trade magazines
and newspapers. It appears that the use of direct marketing methods has increased as destinations have
turned to the direct mail of destination brochures or visitor guides / magazines as well as the use of
global distribution systems and destination web pages to facilitate direct communication and bookings
(Dore and Crouch, 2003).
The Internet has been identified as a tool that could potentially change the distribution channel for all
tourism businesses. The issue of the future role of the destination management organization in the
tourism product purchasing process is, therefore, especially important in order to develop and
implement the strategic plan and marketing policies.
Based on an extended model of E-commerce adoption, three stages in developing commercial
websites may be identified: 1) promotion, 2) provision and processing, and 3) moving from simple
static promotion to full fledged E-commerce applications.
The analysis of the DMOs’ web-site emphasizes that the main functions are:
- general publicity: provide a basic Web presence, interaction, and supporting information;
- advertising product/services: publish the local tourism products or services without prices;
- advertising products/services with Price Information: provide price information for the local
tourism products and services;
- e-mail enquiry: provide e-mail addresses to allow customers to make enquiries about the web-
page, products, services, and so on;
- e-mail booking: allow customers to make online bookings but still have the payment carried out
using conventional method;
- on-line payment: provide online shopping (selling) with credit card payment;
- registration with ID: provide their customers with an account identity for direct purchases;
- others: call for information, tourism guide services, etc.
The main publicity techniques are special events, speeches, news, and written materials, while public
relations encompasses a broader range of activities for building relationships with the company’s
various stakeholders by building up a good “corporate image”, and handling or heading off
unfavourable rumours, stories, and events.
DMO’s often invite suppliers to travel together to a target area for a coordinated sales mission to call
on receptive operators, tour operators, and travel agents in top markets. These sales missions or

Page 5 of 14
blitzes, often include personal office visits, hosting a reception and/or meal followed by a table top
show where you can distribute materials and talk face-to-face with your target market. Cooperative
programs go a long way in blending the DMO and the hospitality community into a unified marketing
presence. They develop mutual respect and appreciation regarding the needs of each by maximizing
membership participation and destination exposure.

3.2 Introduction to Destination Audit (DA)

In the recent tourist literature, more and more often, the concepts of the destination audit are used for
the diagnosis of the competitiveness of the tourist destination (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003: 251).
An audit is “inherently retrospective, concerned with detection of errors and many evaluative
techniques can be applied retrospectively, concurrently, or prospectively” (Pollitt and Summa 1997:
89).
The philosophy of the audit can be applied to a variety of fields such as communications (Downs,
1988), management (Alexander Hamilton institute, 1984), marketing (McDonald, 1993; Berry, Conant
and Parasuraman, 1991), operations (Lindberg, 1972), the environment (Glover and Flagg, 1994;
Nelson, 1988; Young, 1994) and social concerns (Crowther, 2000).
Marketing is the area of management most closely concerned with an entity’s competitiveness. A
review of the marketing and strategic management literature (e.g. Buzzell and Gale 1987; Clifford and
Cavanagh, 1985; Huff 1990; Kay 1995; Kotler 1997) and theories of program evaluation (Bellavita,
Wholey, and Abramson 1986; Brooks 1997; Chen and Rossi 1983; Patton 1997; Scriven 1995;
Shadish, Cook, and Leviton 1991; Stake 1980; Stake et al. 1997; Weiss 1972, 1987; Wholey 1977,
1983) can show how the marketing audit approach is particularly relevant here.
Particularly, Kotler (1998: 747) defines the marketing audit as:
“a comprehensive, systematic, independent and period examination of company’s – or business unit’s
– marketing environment, objective, strategies and recommending a plan of action to improve the
company’s marketing performance”.
Extending this concept to the performance analysis, the audit can be understood as an evaluation and
an improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of an entity’s operating activities related to that
entity’s mission and goals.
According to the definition of Crouch and Ritchie (2004: 9) “the idea of an audit is familiar to most –
it is some sort of an official examination to make sure that everything is in order, and where it is not,
an audit makes recommendations and seeks to provide advices”.
Recent issues on sustainability measurement incorporated the use of audit techniques. Environmental
auditing (EA) has been defined as the process of measuring the actual and potential environmental
impacts of public and private sectors within the tourism industry (Diamantis and Westlake, 1997;
Diamantis, 1998).
The EA has been defined by the Central and Government Environmental Forum – CGEF - (1993: 145)
as ‘‘a management tool comprising a systematic, documented, periodic and objective evaluation of the
performance of the organization, management system and equipment designed to protect the
environment, with the aim of:
a) facilitating management control of practices which may have an impact on the environment;
b) assessing compliance with the local authority’s environmental policies.
Woodside and Marcia (2001:369) state that “the audit has three central objectives. First, the audit is
the syntheses of the findings and inferences of research on performance — both on the managing and
effectiveness in achieving goals of programs. Thus, the evaluations help increase our knowledge and
insight about what works well and poorly in managing programs. Second, the evaluations are reports
on the validity and usefulness of evaluation methods. They include guidance in the methods useful to
use for evaluating. Third, evaluations may provide strong inference on the impact and payback of
enacting specific decisions”.
The general objective of a destination audit is to improve its performance, competitiveness, and
sustainability as governed by a vision for the destination.

Page 6 of 14
Often the concept of a destination audit is linked to solving a particular problem that has arisen,
needing urgent attention. Naturally, when this occurs, the focus of attention is the problem itself, and
solutions, therefore, tend to be narrow. A management audit examines the effectiveness of a program
or the efficiency of an agency in implementing the program or both. An important role played by the
auditor is to assess the reliability and validity of the information that comes from market research
reports, economic impact studies, advertising conversion studies, etc.
Figure 2 proposes a structured process for conducing a systematic audit process.

Determine
the destination vision,
goals and objectives

Establish
the principal competitors and market structure

Identify
destination competitiveness elements of major importance Review
Examine the destination’s
competitive position
the destination’s environement and vision
Evaluete
each of the dimenesions of destination competitiveness

Appraise
destination competitiveness and performance

Recommend
A strategy for enhancing and maintaining the destination’s
competitiveness and sustainability

Figure 2 - The destination audit process (adapted from Ritchie and Crouch, 2003:254).

The destination audit process starts with the analysis of the destination vision, goals and objectives,
and links them with desired outcomes. It is fundamental to establish the principal competitors and the
market structure as well as to identify destination competitiveness elements of major importance. The
audit should then pay particular attention to these critical areas. The examination of the destination’s
environment will reveal important environmental trends, changes, and developments that could have a
significant impact on the destination.
The evaluation of the destination competitiveness dimensions is the most detailed and time-consuming
part of the audit process because it determines “what is”. With the next step, the attention turns to
“what should be”. The auditor, therefore, needs to appraise destination competitiveness and
performance. The standard for making this appraisal was established in the first step, when the
destination vision, goals, and objectives were determined.
The audit process continues with the recommendations for enhancing and maintaining the
destination’s competitiveness and sustainability, and to review the destination’s competitive position
and vision.
The destination audit needs a significant degree of impartiality and independence. It is also important
that the auditor is very experienced, knowledgeable, competent, and creative in order to adequately
evaluate destination competitiveness and to identify courses of action that will improve the
destination’s prospects.
Kotler (1988) notes that the marketing audit can be conducted in six ways: 1) self-audit; 2) audit from
across; 3) audit from above; 4) company auditing office; 5) company task-force audit; 6) outsider
audit.

Page 7 of 14
The self-audit is the least expensive approach because it is conducted by the destination management
organization. If the main advantage is that the audit is carried out by someone already very
knowledgeable about the destination, the main disadvantage is that this organization often doesn’t
have sufficient time to do the audit and is not very critical of its own performance. Recommendations
are likely to involve only minor change. However, for small destinations, this may be the only viable
option.
The level of independence is bigger with the audit from across than the self-audit because the audit is
not made by the destination managers but by someone different in the organization or area of
responsibility. The benefits from a familiarity with activities help to understand the inter-
organizational relationships but their views may be biased by being either highly critical or not critical
enough.
The audit from above approach relies on more superior managers or organizations assessing
subordinate organizations or managers. Similar problems with independence apply and no one is left
to review the most important player in the destination – the organization or manager at the top.
The independence would be increased with the auditing office. The problem here could be that the
experience of this auditor may have been limited to only the one destination or, if responsible for other
audit needs in government, still have insufficient knowledge of the tourism sector.
The members of the task force could be drawn from a range of destination stakeholders including
representatives of the local community and various important interest groups, where no one
organization can dominate. This type of audit also tends to carry more weight and authority. A
potential disadvantage concerns the time it may take to complete an audit undertaken in this way
unless the task force is adequately resourced with research assistance and a strong chairperson.
The outside auditor – shaped by specialized consultants – can ensure the most independent and
objective appraisal. They have a large knowledge of the issues facing other destinations and can,
therefore, adapt the strategies and solutions that have worked in other contexts.
Nevertheless, this system is expensive and a great deal of time must be spent becoming familiar with
the destination to begin with. Moreover, with regard to the audit of destination, few such experienced
consultants are available.

4. CASE STUDY: ABRUZZO REGION

4.1. Introduction

Abruzzo, the administrative region situated in the center of Italy, is living an important moment in its
tourism life cycle. The current decision is whether to improve new products for asserting themselves
like the destination in the "big market" or to remain focused on the same small market of proximity
that, however, in recent history has concurred to the development of an interesting tourist system.
The analysis of the Abruzzo tourist system evidences the presence of three main subjects who carry
out different roles and functions (fig. 3).
Region
Abruzzo
Osservatorio Turistico

ABRUZZO PROMOZIONE TURISMO

Figure 3 - The regional tourism system (source: author).

The tourism legislation assigns the following functions to the Regional government:
1. planning;
2. co-ordination;

Page 8 of 14
 3. control of the tourism activities and initiatives.
The Regional government also plays a fundamental role in promoting enterprise creation and
development.
“Abruzzo Promozione Turismo” (APT) is the destination management organization and it has been
created for coordinating and promoting the regional tourism system.
The analysis of the different DMO’s activities emphasizes the existence of two main categories that
are summarized below:
- Destination’s Development: support of the tourism enterprises, development of the local
resources (attractions, accessibility, facilities), and integration between them;
- Destination’s Marketing: promotion, management of brand image, management of the internet
activities.
The marketing activity of the DMO can be divided again into two main groups: the inner promotion
promotes the attractions to the customers who are already present in Abruzzo; the external promotion
comprises the complex of activities put in action in order to attract potential tourists, promoting all
resources of the region as a unique product and consolidates the image of the Abruzzo.
Regarding the inner promotion, on one side Abruzzo Promozione Turismo collaborates or realizes
directly local projects as publicity on the local media, sponsorships, etc. On the other side it works in
order to create a unique image of the whole destination, where the different Abruzzo tourism
stakeholders are encouraged to work together as a product, trying exceed their possible personal
interests in favor of a more organic supply.
The external promotion activities aim to assure a unitary strategy, through their own actions and
addressing those of various local stakeholders.
Based on the communicated object, it is possible to distinguish between the system’s promotion and
the initiative’s promotion.
The system’s promotion values the total supply to the target market in order to offer a system of
integrated product while utilizing advertising campaigns, promotion of marks of quality, and
campaigns for strengthening the image.
On the other hand, the promotion by single initiatives promotes specific local attractions (cultural and
sport events, precise packages for target pre-characterized, etc.).
In relation to the addressees, it is possible to identify two different promotion politics. One is directly
focused on the tourists and the other focused on attracting the tour and travel businesses.
The promotion related to the intermediation channel refers to all those actions that develop and
consolidate the relationships with tour operators (participation in fairs and workshop, preparation of
informative material, realization of specific integrated offers).
The promotion related to the tourists comprises a series of initiatives that aim to facilitate the
relationships between suppliers and customers and also to diffuse and to strengthen the tourist image
of the Region.
This activity can be split into two main actions: promotion towards new markets and, even if it is still
in an embryonic phase, development of customer relationship management programs.

4.2 A possible model for the destination audit: “Osservatorio Turistico Regionale”

The Regional Government has instituted the “Osservatorio Turistico Regionale” (OTR) for supporting
the development and the improvement of the tourism in Abruzzo.
This organization has to “assure a deepened analysis of the course of the tourism demand and a steady
information to the local tourist stakeholders” (Regional law, n. 54, June, 26 - 1997)
So far the OTR has never been activated as a physical structure, even though the Region has started
some collaborations with external advisers whom write up a report every year about the tourist course,
the tendencies and the promotional politics made by the DMO.
The OTR is a nodal element into the complex networks of the different stakeholders for realizing the
competitive tourism destination.

Page 9 of 14
The OTR can be understood as a destination audit that analyses the main components of the
destination. It evaluates the outputs of the local tourism subjects and predicts future scenarios.
The OTR is more than a statistic office. It is a “laboratory” for the tourism analysis. It can analyse and
interpret the messages of the market and check the environment within the destination.
OTR’s activities are carried out through a range of information that is concerned with the use,
requalification, and management of the destination’s resources.
In other words, the OTR supports the tourism destination manager by choosing the best tourist politics
through understanding, studying, and diagnosing all important factors that contribute to the
development of a competitive and sustainable destination and, at the same time, by examining the
output of the marketing activity of the destination.
The OTR is not only a tool for reducing the complexity but has become essential to the development
of a system of relations between the different stakeholders of a tourism destination.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown the existence of four main levels of complexity that are explained as follows:
a. Complexity resulting from the large number of the players
The tourist product is a mix of different resources, attractions, and services that are related at some
specific decision’s moment and a combination of various players that are also in elevated numbers in
the destination of smaller dimensions.
b. Complexity resulting from the interactions and the influences between different sectors
Tourism is, by nature, a multi-sector activity. Besides generating economic diversification and job
creation, tourism development plays a precursory role in creating considerable socio-cultural and
environment problems at tourist destinations.
Tourists purchase many goods and services each of which use inputs from other sectors of the
economy (such as agriculture, fuel, water, electricity, construction and so on). They compete for their
use of factors of production with all other sectors. Since many tourism destinations rely heavily on
tourism, the effects of tourism on other sectors of the economy are likely to be significant. Any policy
issues related to such a large, multi-sector activity are likely to have feedback effects and linkages
throughout the entire economy.
c. Complexity dependent on the stakeholder relationship dynamics
The tourist industry is particularly complex, diverse, and dynamic and tourism cannot be planned
without understanding the interrelationships among the several parts of the supply side. Due to the
great increase in the number of participants in the tourist industry and denouncing the lack of cohesion
in this highly fragmented industry, their efforts must be coordinated in order to maximize the benefits
and minimize the negative impacts of tourism. The recognition by stakeholders of this
interdependency is another prerequisite to the development of a more sustainable industry.
d. Complexity dependent on the interactions between different levels of governance
Tourism administration systems have received limited attention despite their central effect on the
success of the planning activity and profitability of the tourism industry. Their efficiency,
effectiveness, and their potential limitations and implications on tourism plan formulation and
implementation processes play a fundamental role in the destination’s competitiveness. In general, the
centralized form supports the notion of a central steering agency, having all information, resources,
and solutions at its disposal, whereas the decentralized form involves the transference of power from
the central agency to local governments, and takes the interests of local actors as the point of
departure.
At present, there is an inadequate understanding of whether top-down (centralist) or bottom-up
(decentralist) administrative forms are likely to be more effective in handling complex interactions
between various organizations and parties, each of whom have different perceptions, preferences and
strategies.
Each of these levels of complexity demands a lot of information to be managed. In this regard, the
Osservatorio Turistico Regionale represents a good tool for a comprehensive, systematic and periodic
data-elaboration and for reducing the tourism’s complexity. It can help the destination policy-makers

Page 10 of 14
to improve the network’s politics in the destinations, as a lot of Italian places are characterized by a
high number of small/medium sized enterprises, which are often undercapitalized and not in a position
to compete alone in the global market.
Moreover, the presence of the OTR makes it possible to go from an approach limited to the tourism
phenomenon to a multi-disciplinary approach that includes all elements of the destination.
In conclusion, the proposed outline (table 1) summarizes the main functions of the OTR.

Table 1. The main functions of the Osservatorio Turistico Regionale (source: author)
Data-elaboration consists of the analysis of tourism supply and demand. It
estimates the official statistics, and carries out comparisons with other
Data elaboration
destinations in order to anticipate the market trends and to emphasize the
tourism products in phases of development, maturity, or obsolescence.
Environmental auditing concentrates its application on identifying the
present and potential environmental impacts on the ecosystems. Starting
with a description of the basic environmental elements (water, waste etc)
Environmental audit environmental auditing progresses to detail the impacts of each element
through the use of environmental indicators. In overall terms, this
technique can assist the resources managers to safeguard their assets
within the sites, and to implement their ecotourism strategies.
Performance audit consists of trying to identify opportunities and
challenges through a periodic, comprehensive, systematic, and
Performance audit independent investigation into the destination environment and specific
marketing activities. It recommends action plans in order to increase the
organization’s efficiency.

Page 11 of 14
References

Alexander Hamilton institute (1984) Management Audit Maximizing Your Company’s Efficiency and
Effectineness. Modern Business Reports, New York.
Bellavita, C. et al. (1986). Performance-Oriented Evaluation: Prospects for the Future. In Performance
and Credibility: Developing Excellence in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, edited by J. S. Wholey
et al. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 57-82.
Berry, L. et al. (1991). A framework for conducting a services marketing audit. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 19 (summer), 255-68.
Bieger, T (2000). Destination management e finanziamenti. In Destination Management: fondamenti
di marketing e gestione della destinazione, edited by Pechlaner H.,Weiermeir K. Touring University
Press, Milano.
Brooks, R. A. (1997). Evaluation and Auditing in State Legislature. In Evaluation for the 21st
Century: A Handbook, edited by Eleanor Chelimsky and William R. Shadish. Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage, 109-120.
Brunetti, F. (2001). Il Destination Management: aspetti problematici, significato e percorsi alla ricerca
di una qualità ad effetto prolungato. In Destination Management: alla ricerca di una soluzione
possibile edited by M. Franch. Giappichelli, Torino.
Buhalis, D. (2001), Destination management organizations and small and medium sized tourism
enterprises. Conference. Information Society Technologies for Tourism. 9 July 2001 in Brussels.
Buzzell, D. and T. G. Bradley (1987). The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. Free
Press, New York.
Central and Government Environmental Forum (1993). A Guide to the Eco-Management and Audit
Scheme for UK Local Government, CGEF, HMSO, London. firms, The Geographical Journal, 161,
(1), 29–37.
Chen, H. and P. H. Rossi (1983). Evaluating with Sense: The Theory-Driven Approach. Evaluation
Review, 7, 283-302.
Clifford, D. K. and R. E. Cavanagh (1985). The Winning Performance. Bantam Books, Toronto.
Crouch, G. I. and J.B.R. Ritchie (2004) Application of the audit concept for destination diagnosis. In
Reinventing a Tourism Destination. Facing the challenge, edited by S. Weber and R. Tomljenovic.
Scientific edition institute for tourism, Zagreb.
Crowther, D. (2000) Social and Environmental Accounting. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London.
de Araujo, L.M. and B. Bramwell (2002). Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 1138-1164.
Diamantis, D. (1998) Environmental auditing: a tool in ecotourism development. Eco-Management
and Auditing Journal, 5 (1), 15–21.
Diamantis, D. and J. Westlake (1997). Environmental auditing: an approach towards monitoring the
environmental impacts in tourism destinations, with reference to the case of Molyvos. Progress of
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(1), 3–15.
Dore, L. and G. I. Crouch (2003). Promoting destinations: an exploratory study of publicity programs
used by national tourism organizations. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(2), 137-151.
Downs, C.W. (1988). Communication Audits. Scott Foresman, Glenview, Illinois.

Page 12 of 14
Fyall, A. et al. (2000). Theoretical Perspectives Applied to Inter-Organisational Collaboration on
Britain's Inland Waterways. In Global Alliances in Tourism and Hospitality Management edited by J.
C. Crotts, D. Buhalis and R. March (89-112). Haworth Press, Inc, New York.
Glover, H. D., & Flagg, J.C. (1994). Environmental Auditing: Risk Assessment Guidelines. Altamore
Springs: The Institute of Internal Auditors.
Heath, E. and G. Wall (1992). Marketing Tourism Destinations: A Strategic Planning Approach. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Howie, F. (2003). Managing the tourist destination. Continuum, London.
Hu, Y. and J.R.B. Ritchie (1993). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual Approach.
Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 25-34.
Huff, A. S. (1990). Mapping Strategic Thought. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Young, S. S. (1994). Environmental Auditing. Cahners Publishing Co, Des Plaines.
Kay, J. (1995). Why Firms Succeed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Keller P. (2000). Destination Marketing: Strategic area as inquiry. In From Destination to Destination
Marketing and Management edited by M. Manente and M. Cerato. Libreria Editrice Cafoscarini,
Venezia.
Kerr, et al. (2001). Politics, policy and regional tourism administration: A case examination of Scottish
area tourist board funding. Tourism Management, 22(6), 649-657.
Kotler, P. (1998). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control (6th ed.).
Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, New York.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Leiper, N. (1995). Tourism Management. RMIT Press, Melbourne.
Lindberg, R. A. (1972). Operations Auditing. Amacom, New York.
Martini, U. and M. Franch (2002). E-tourism Project Research Areas And Second-Year Results.
http://www.cs.unitn.it/etourism/.
Martini, U. (2001). Da luoghi a destinazioni turistiche. Ipotesi di applicazione del destination
management al turismo alpino. In Destination management: alla ricerca di una soluzione possibile,
edited by M. Franch. Giappichelli, Torino.
McDonald, M. (1993). The Marketing Audit. Translating Marketing Theory into Practice.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Morrison, A.M. et al. (1998). Convention and visitor bureaus in the USA: A profile of bureaus, bureau
executives, and budgets. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(1), 1-19.
Nelson, D.D. (1988). International Environmental Auditng. Government Institutes, Rockville.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation 3d ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pearce, D. (1992). Tourist Organizations. Longman Group, Harlow, Essex, UK.
Pechlaner, H. (2001), Il futuro delle Alpi come destinazione. Le sfide di una collaborazione alpina
sovraregionale. In Destination management: alla ricerca di una soluzione possibile, edited by M.
Franch. Giappichelli, Torino.
Pike, S. (2004). Destination Marketing Organisations. Elsevier Ltd, Oxford.
Pollitt, C. and Hilkka, S. (1997). Performance Auditing. In Evaluation for the 21st Century. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 99-122.

Page 13 of 14
Regione Abruzzo. Legge regionale n. 54, June 26, 1997.
Ritchie, J.R.B. G.I. Crouch (2003). The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Scriven, M. S. (1969). An Introduction to Meta-Evaluation. Education Report, 2, 36-38.
Scriven, M. S. (1995). The Logic of Evaluation and Evaluation Practice. In Reasoning in Evaluation:
Inferential Links and Leaps edited by D. M. Fournier. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 49-70.
Shadish, W. R., Jr. et al. (1991). Foundations of Program Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sheehan, L.R. and J.R.B. Ritchie (2005). Destination stakeholders: Exploring identity and salience.
Forthcoming in Annals of Tourism Research.
Stake, R. E. (1980). Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation. In Rethinking
Educational Research, edited by W. B. Dockrell et al. London, 188-203.
Stake, R. et al. (1997). The Evolving Syntheses of Program Value. Evaluation Practice, 18 (2), 89-103.
Tamma M. (2001) Destination Management: gestire prodotti e sistemi locali di offerta. In Destination
management: alla ricerca di una soluzione possibile, edited by M. Franch. Giappichelli, Torino.
Tinsley, R., and P. Lynch (2001). Small tourism business networks and destination development.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(4), 367-378.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Prentice
Hall, Englewood. Cliffs, NJ.
Wholey, J. S. (1977). Evaluability Assessment. In Evaluation Research Methods: A Basic Guide,
edited by L. Rutman. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Wholey, J. S. (1983). Evaluation and Effective Public Management. Little Brown, Boston.
Word Tourism Organization (2004). Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for local planners.
WTO ed., Madrid.

Page 14 of 14