The Pillar of Governance in the Spanish Smart Tourism Destinations (DTI) Model

Abstract

Governance is an essential element of the DTI model, which recognizes the complexity of managing an industry as sensitive as tourism to changes in the economic, institutional, social, or technological environment. In this context, governance constitutes a critical aspect of a DTI model that can only be promoted from the transversality of the actions and from an integrating and coordinated vision, generated in a framework of collaboration with the participation of public entities, the private sector, and the social agents involved. After a review of the concept of tourism governance and the role of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) in it, the chapter focuses on presenting how governance is integrated into the DTI model. This pillar represents a weight of 12.4% of the model and is articulated through 12 requirements and 26 indicators through which the performance of the destination is evaluated in four areas: Vision, strategic planning and implementation; Efficient management; Transparency and participation; and Responsibility and control. Finally, the chapter purposefully contains the main recommendations that are usually made to destinations when implementing the DTI model in terms of governance.

1 Introduction

This chapter looks at the governance pillar within the smart destination strategic management model, following the same structure as the other chapters that address the pillars of the smart destination model (Fig. 1): an introduction providing context for the theme of the pillar, in this case, tourism governance; a description of how the smart destination model coordinates governance of the destination to ensure that it is “smart” and capable of supporting all the activities it performs within the framework of its smart destination strategy; and a practical section to illustrate the typical recommendations that are usually made to destinations following the initial diagnosis in the scope of their governance.

Fig. 1

Chapter outline

2 Approach to the Concept of Governance

As is well known, the governance of a society encompasses all government processes, procedures, and practices, developed by its institutions to decide and regulate the corresponding issues (ONU, 2022). These government processes entail the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to make decisions. Depending on how this authority is exercised, there are different governance models.

To define the governance model in force in a society, we could ask ourselves the following questions: Who has the power and is entitled to make decisions? Who has a voice and a vote when decisions are made? How can the different groups and stakeholders affected express and enforce their opinions? And how are decision makers held accountable to those affected by their decisions?

In the twenty-first century, in democratic societies, the governance function is a two-way undertaking that requires cooperation, since public–private interdependence is acknowledged, as well as the need to interact and involve the different stakeholders in the area when making decisions affecting them. With this in mind, governance decisions are adopted by consensus with a view to reconciling the interests of all stakeholders affected by them, involving them in the decision-making process. The aim is also for the decision-making process to be efficient, transparent, and honest. Decision-making must also be auditable and assessable, rendering accounts to society.

In short, the basic management principles inspiring the governance of a territory will be efficiency, responsiveness, accountability, transparency, and participation with shared responsibility. With this in mind, “The European Governance: A White Paper” (European Commission, 2001) identifies efficiency, coherence, openness, participation, and responsibility as pillars of good governance.

Efficiency because the measures adopted by the government must respond to and solve existing challenges; they must be also timely, achieving the results sought on the basis of clear starting objectives and capable of being followed and measured, verifying the impact in the short, medium, and long term.

Coherence because the policies developed and the actions undertaken must be aligned with one another, avoiding overlaps or incompatibilities, facilitating their understanding, acceptance, and avoiding ambiguities.

Openness refers to the fact that an open framework is encouraged, facilitating active and fluid communications between all stakeholders involved. To this end, participation and collaboration shall be encouraged among all stakeholders throughout the governance process: from the design of strategies and actions to their implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

Finally, encouraging participation entails each stakeholder assuming their share of responsibility in the process. To this end, it is essential that the roles played by each stakeholder within the social system are well defined and communicated.

Having offered a general instruction to the concept of the governance of a territory, and stating its guiding principles, we will look at governance in the field of the tourism sector in the next section of this chapter. The aim will be to establish the premises for defining governance of tourism destinations that aspire to be managed in a “smart” way.

3 Governance in the Context of Tourism Management

The concept of territorial governance adapted to the context of the tourism sector refers to how the different areas and levels of action are managed in tourism destinations, pursuing the effective management of tourism activity in the territory that forms part of the tourism destination (Hall, 2011). In line with the principles of governance reflected in the previous section, the UNWTO proposes efficiency and transparency as guiding principles for the governance of tourism destinations, facilitating coordination, collaboration, and/or cooperation between the different groups in the destination. It also indicates that tourism governance must be subject to assessments and audits and that it must be accountable, guaranteeing the prevalence of collective interest and the achievement of goals shared by the network of stakeholders in the tourism value chain. Thus, good tourism governance must be capable of offering solutions and generating opportunities for the sector, promoting agreements based on the recognition of interdependencies and responsibilities shared by all stakeholders in the tourism system (UNWTO, 2021).

Based on the foregoing, destination governance is responsible for designing and providing a context where the interests of the sector, companies, citizens, and tourists converge with tourism policies. Governance of the destination consists of making consensual strategic decisions that shape the politics of the destination, setting objectives and designing plans to achieve them (Joppe, 2018). Figure 2 represents the areas of action of tourism governance and its main stakeholders.

Fig. 2

Tourism governance, stakeholders involved, and spheres of action

From this figure, it can be deduced how tourism policy in the destination, the development strategies adopted, and its daily management involve coordinating, listening to, and satisfying the needs and interests of all stakeholders affected by the tourism development being promoted: tourists, residents in the destination and tourism attractions, both private and public. To achieve this, it is essential for the tourism governance model implemented to be a participatory and equitable model, co-created by everyone based on shared commitment and responsibility. Furthermore, the model must be flexible and revisable, open to experimentation, encouraging the development of best practices, shared among stakeholders in the destination, generating and transferring knowledge (Hall, 2011). The fact that the institutions have clear mandates, well-defined objectives, political support, and effective leadership from the central administration will also contribute to effective tourism governance, facilitating the periodic review of their results (OECD, 2017).

Although the literature on what good governance should look like is extensive, in practice, whether destination management satisfies the principles that should inspire it will depend on the existence of a management structure in the destination that has qualified and motivated staff capable of exercising leadership and serving as a meeting point for all stakeholders involved in tourism development, aligning the destination’s strategy around the interests shared between them. These destination management structures, responsible for the governance of the destination, are known as “Management Entities,” “Tourism Management Entities,” or alternatively “Destination Management Organizations” (DMOs). DMOs are the main organizational units in the destinations and are made up by the different authorities, stakeholders, and professionals operating in the destination, with a view to promoting partnerships between them that facilitate the materialization of their shared vision of the tourism destination (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Functions of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs)

DMOs do not apply a single organizational and legal formula observable across all destinations. To achieve their objectives, DMOs can adopt different organizational formats and models, depending on whether destination management falls to a single public authority or whether it is a shared management model supported by public–private partnerships. The idiosyncrasy of each destination will be reflected in its management formula, which will respond to the inclusion and adaptation of a variety of aspects: such as the administrative organization of the destination, the degree of maturity of the destination and the stakeholders involved, their priorities, the challenges identified and that it aims to achieve, etc.

Looking deeper at the functions of DMOs, they are responsible for leading, promoting, defining, planning, managing, coordinating, and monitoring all activities related to the implementation of tourism policies, strategic destination planning, and marketing. In terms of marketing the destination, the work of DMOs is vital, as they are responsible for structuring the products and services on offer, developing products or managing existing products, such as conference centers or convention centers, selecting target markets, leading the promotion and marketing of the destination, identifying and creating competitive advantages and managing possible crises (UNWTO, 2019). To guide the actions of the DMOs, the UNWTO has identified three key aspects that must be prioritized to ensure that governance of the destination is effective, therefore positioning it correctly to overcome its management challenges:

• Strategic leadership, taken as meaning the ability of the DMOs to combine efforts, channeling the energies and resources of stakeholders, promoting public–private strategic partnerships, in favor of a shared vision, making it possible to achieve collective objectives. Furthermore, this leadership will be reflected in the ability of the DMOs to plan the destination’s strategy to achieve these objectives, as well as in their ability to communicate the advantages and suitability of implementing the agreed strategic plan, involving the stakeholders in its implementation. With this in mind, the performance of the DMOs is key to explaining the competitiveness of destinations.

• Efficient implementation in the different areas of responsibility linked to destination management, meaning that their functions are clearly defined, avoiding responsibilities that overlap with other tourism organizations that operate in the destination, while coordinating with them. Furthermore, with a view to assessing the effectiveness of the implementation process, it is essential for the DMOs render accounts of their activity on a regular basis, in the exercise of their powers, assessing the extent to which their management contributes to reaching the destination envisioned in their strategic planning.

• Efficient governance, understood as a destination management system that is effective, transparent, participatory, responsible, inclusive, that acts within the framework of the SDGs (ONU, 2015), that is accountable at all times for its work and that strives to raise awareness and guide the industry in terms of quality and excellence, prioritizing a model of sustainable and responsible tourism development. In relation to this desired efficiency, it is important to point out that its achievement will be mediated by the distribution of powers between the different stakeholders that form part of the tourism value chain in a specific destination: When power is held by a minority, it is easy for the interests of the rest of the stakeholders to not be sufficiently represented in decision-making process as regards destination management (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010). With this in mind, it is desirable that the destination’s governance be structured in such a way as to ensure the representation and participation of all stakeholders that form part of the tourism value chain (Welsey & Pforr, 2010), regardless of their influence. With this in mind, the DMOs must define a governance model that regulates the exchange between stakeholders, minimizing opportunistic behavior, promoting trust, building long-term relationships, creating strategic partnerships, and transferring incremental innovations.

To round off this section, it should be noted that the work of the DMOs is particularly complex, since, from the outset, the tourism industry is difficult to manage as it is very sensitive to changes in the economic, social, legal, technological environment, etc. In addition, the tourism industry must integrate and coordinate the offer of multiple stakeholders, with very different interests, which together shape the value proposition offered by the destinations, and who is responsible for the tourists feeling welcomed and enjoying their stay. Given the importance of the actions of the DMOs as backbone of the destination’s tourism attractions, the next section reflects on a number of coordination aspects that the DMOs should bear in mind to achieve the necessary strategic leadership in tourism destinations.

4 The Work of the DMOs, the Challenge of Coordination

The starting point for effectively organizing the activity of the DMOs is to understand the interdependencies, connections, and collateral effects that occur between tourism and other areas of public management. In particular when taking into account that destinations do not always correspond to administrative units, complicating the coordination and execution of the different tasks to be performed to support tourism activity. Inevitably, any strategy to be implemented will involve considering mutual dependencies, identifying common interests shared by tourism and other areas of the local administration and/or public agencies, seeking synergies and complementarities. Analyzing how the decisions made in tourism affect and add value to other areas of public management will help facilitate the work of DMOs, promoting multisectoral policies, increasing their effectiveness and harnessing synergies (OECD, 2017). With this in mind, for example, actions performed to enhance the value of and promote the unique cultural heritage of the destination will have a positive impact on its image and will indirectly reinforce the brand image of local products, facilitating their marketing (Elliot et al., 2011). Or the actions designed to promote inclusive growth will place a priority on small-scale commercial transactions between local companies. Investments to renovate or maintain accommodation, transport infrastructures, etc., benefit not only tourists but also the local population. The same goes for actions aimed at protecting the environment. Considering these interconnections will undoubtedly improve the coherence and effectiveness of public policies, as well as the actions performed in collaboration with the private sector. This fact justifies the inclusion in the governance pillar of the smart destination model of “efficient management,” a series of requirements linked to the creation and proper functioning of administrative coordination structures in the destinations.

Once the dependencies and shared interests have been identified, it will be necessary to establish institutional agreements that harness the political synergies that occur when knowledge is shared and work is coordinated, adopting a global perspective, with a long-term vision, aimed at promoting innovation and the competitiveness of the destination. To this end, beyond the work of the DMOs, the leadership of the central government for the development of a cohesive and coherent tourism policy is critical (OECD, 2017). Given that the provision of tourism services, by nature, is linked to the availability of other types of additional services, not inherent to tourism, coordination is required between multiple state public management departments, as well as regional and local governments. Aligning policies and efforts will allow destinations to appropriately respond to temporary and structural changes, that occur in the technological, social, environmental, political, health spheres, etc. To this end, creating discussion forums and multi-sector and multi-level communication platforms can be very useful.

Discussion forums will help to better identify the current and potential positive impacts that tourism can have across all levels (local, regional, and national), given that different administrations are involved in the provision of services to tourists. For example, at the local level, tourism contributes to the appreciation of local gastronomy and local food production, providing a rationale for strengthening environmental preservation and the protection of what is native to the destination. The same can be said at a regional or national level, helping to reinforce the image of the destination associated with its unique products and reinforcing the production system of the country, region, or town/city. With this in mind, effective tourism management provides for a positive environment for the creation and proliferation of small-scale businesses, both in urban and rural areas, increasing the industrial capacity of the territory and employment opportunities for the population. By stimulating economic activity in the destination, it is possible to encourage an improvement in skills, knowledge and professional qualifications, which in turn fosters the definition of new quality standards, leading to the emergence and consolidation of good practices, improving competitiveness, feasibility, and quality of life in the territory in the long term. Eduardo Parra reflects, in the box bellow, over the relevance of human capital at DMOs, as a catalyst to boost the success when adopting smart tourism destinations strategies.

4.1 People, Innovation, and Regeneration of Tourism: Delimiting Factors in Smart Tourism Destinations

Smart Tourism Destinations entail a transformative process that traditional destinations undergo, changing certain existing elements of the tourism ecosystem without excluding the introduction of new ones. In other words, it consists of maintaining and preserving the knowledge and skills developed over decades to address new developments and models using human resources that lack certain skills. At present, tourism destinations face the challenge of the significant decapitalization of tourism knowledge in favor of other more attractive industries from the perspective of personal stability. Therefore, building a good base of organizational social capital that balance the competitive advantage of destinations, structured around social relations within the business ecosystems, will facilitate the successful collective action of smart tourism destinations, thus creating a unique long-term asset, fostering trust, and putting in place the mechanisms that improve motivation, innovation and creativity within them.

This requires a collective intelligence approach to support the smart tourism destination managerial approach, it’s the central pillar of which is a capacity for collective behavior within the system, facilitating a degree of decentralization and self-organization in a natural and artificial way. This disruptive and innovative approach is linked to three key aspects: a) Bottom-up approach in the management of tourism companies; b) Maximum collaboration in the people ecosystem (smart governance), with digital tools as a driver; and, c) Generation of interconnectivity between organizations and people within the tourism sector. As a result, a differential binomial emerges within the smart tourism destination approach: human innovation for tourism versus the regeneration of tourism.

PhD. Eduardo Parra López

Associate Professor, University of La Laguna, Spain.

Multi-level communication platforms facilitate the integration of different government policies, promoting the communication and coordination of the work of governments, across different levels, linked to the provision of tourism services: efforts aimed at implementing policies and actions to ensure the availability of the necessary structures to support tourism. Furthermore, these platforms will connect governments to industry and civil society, promoting dialogue and joint work. To this end, when designing these connection and communication platforms, priority must be given to encouraging interdepartmental, horizontal, and vertical cooperation between the different levels and spheres of government, as well as with industry and the scientific community, which is decisive and largely responsible for the tourism competitiveness of a destination. Having stable work platforms in place will facilitate the development of a multi-agent model that stimulates the desired levels of cooperation and coordination between all relevant government areas, at their different levels. When these platforms are operational, it will be easier for the central government to lead, promote, and integrate policies, not only specific to tourism, but also in relation to areas including mobility and transport, environment, culture, economy, immigration, science and technology, education, urban planning, land management, etc. In addition, these platforms contribute to: (i) a clearer definition of the roles and functions of the different levels of government in tourism administrations; (ii) involving both civil society and industry in the design and decision-making process in relation to tourism policy; (iii) adopting effective mechanisms for involving the different stakeholders and ensuring their participation; (iv) identifying the necessary resources for its implementation and creating tools to monitor their functioning (OECD, 2017).

Finally, beyond the national level, the envisaged leadership of the DMOs should promote closer cooperation between relevant international organizations, reducing the duplication of efforts, harnessing resources and seeking synergies that facilitate more coherent policy development. This cooperation will also be beneficial when it comes to identifying trends, challenges, and potential threats to be overcome. With this in mind, common challenges facing the sector, as regards the impacts caused by tourism, resource management, sustainable production, consumption and waste management, will be addressed from a multinational perspective; this will make it possible to harness experiences and knowledge available in other environments, but that are transferable to the destination.

Faced with these coordination challenges, innovation and technology can simplify and improve the performance of DMOs. However, for this to be possible, the governance of the destination must function as the backbone of its management, as it will be the DMOs who are responsible for promoting innovation and using the available technological tools to make the destination competitive, sustainable, accessible, and ultimately meet its strategic objectives. As will be seen in the fourth section, all these needs were considered as part of the governance pillar of the smart destination model.

5 Governance and Tourism Competitiveness

Once the conceptualization of tourism governance has been approached, it is easy to sense how destination governance affects competitiveness. There is a clear interdependence between how the governance of a destination is structured and how its management processes are designed, as well as its subsequent performance (Berne et al., 2012; Soares et al., 2022). With this in mind, when governance is effective, the destination’s policy sets the right direction, establishing a strategic plan that positions the destination in the long term, generating opportunities for companies and residents, as well as promoting memorable and satisfying experiences for visitors to the destination.

Figure 4 represents the model proposed by Ritchie and Crouch (2003) to describe the determining factors in the competitiveness and sustainability of a tourism destination. According to these authors, the tourism competitiveness of a territory depends on the resources it has access to (comparative advantages), but also on the destination’s ability to compete, which will be dependent on its ability to effectively and efficiently manage its resources (competitive advantages). As part of the theoretical framework offered by this model, the governance system of the destination constitutes a strategic aspect linked to two of the pillars that the model identifies as determining factors in the tourism competitiveness of destinations: destination policy and planning; and operational destination management. With this in mind, the definition of the destination’s governance system has a direct impact on its competitiveness (Sorokina et al., 2022). Hence, the DTI model considers this as a backbone of smart tourism destinations. As Crouch (2011) illustrated, “destination policy, planning and development” consists of architecting the tourism system at destinations, stating their mission, vision, values, as for instance “pursuing a sustainable tourism development,” specifying the objectives which concrete their shared vision for the destination, and defining the strategies to achieve those objectives. Additionally, monitoring the implementation of the agreed strategic plan assures its effectiveness and closes the destination policy management cycle. Complementary to the long-term destination policy, the operational management at the destination fosters the marketing strategy, optimizing the available resources and gathering the needed capacities to supply memorable experiences to tourists, at the time that improve the residents quality of life.

Fig. 4

Main determinants of tourism destination competitiveness and sustainability. Source: inspired on Crouch (2011), p. 29

Since DMOs are the entities in charge of designing and implementing the described activities, they must also administrate the supporting and core resources of the destination, encouraging private companies collaboration when designing the mix of activities to be promoted, activities defined to value the endowed natural and cultural resources of the destination. Consequently, DMOs must boost the development of a coherent tourism supply which matches the shared destination mission and values. Moreover, following the proposed model by Ritchie and Crouch, DMOs should additionally manage the set of qualifying and amplifying determinants, as destination image or destination carrying capacity, to enhance the tourism competitiveness of the destination.

For all the abovementioned, when DMOs structure the decision-making processes efficiently, ensuring coherence, transparency, participation, consideration of the interests of all stakeholders (Moscardo, 2014), etc., there will be a drop in transaction and coordination costs throughout the value chain of the tourism destination, fostering collaboration between the different stakeholders and their commitment to the co-creation of value in the destination (Matteucci et al., 2022; Song et al., 2013).

Beyond the existing relationship between governance and competitiveness, it is worth mentioning that governance also has a positive impact on the sustainability of the destination (Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Dredge & Jamal, 2013). Intuitively speaking, it is easy to assume that when the destination has managed to consolidate a system of participatory governance, it will be easier to achieve its goals in terms of social, economic, and environmental sustainability (De Zoysa, 2022). With this in mind, good destination governance has a direct impact on its competitiveness, as well as an indirect impact, since destinations where good governance is in place will be more sustainable and therefore more competitive (Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). See Professor Larry shared reflection on the importance of measuring and evaluating competitiveness. As readers will found out across next pages, DTI Model provides a practical tool to track and assess many of the aspects affecting tourism destination competitiveness.

5.1 Importance of Measuring/Evaluating Competitiveness

Destination competitiveness is generally associated with features such as destination ‘attractiveness’, quality of experiences offered, superior performance in the delivery of goods and services to meet tourists' needs, and contribution to resident socio-economic prosperity currently and in the future. What researchers have offered by way of model development is best characterized as an identification of features that support the capacity or ability of a destination to deliver certain objectives deemed to be worthwhile, rather than a precise definition of the concept itself. Each of these established frameworks attempts to provide a strategic tool identifying the drivers of destination competitiveness, to make cross-country comparisons of destination performance, to identify the challenges that require policy attention in tourism industry development, and to benchmark destination progress in improving competitiveness. These frameworks also help destination managers to formulate strategies for tourism development based on identification of key strengths and weaknesses of a destination, the opportunities for tourism development arising from comparative and competitive advantage, and the weaknesses and challenges that must be overcome.

The frameworks developed to assess destination competitiveness differ in structure as well as the preferred set of indicators. Key performance indicators used to assess destination competitiveness include outcomes such as tourism numbers and expenditure (domestic and international), change in destination market share, tourism contribution to GDP, value added and employment in total and per capita, and tourist satisfaction. The established frameworks employ a substantial number of both quantitative and qualitative measures that are taken to support destination performance. Commonly accepted indicators relate to the quantities and qualities of attributes with tourism drawing power such as endowed resources (natural, social and cultural/heritage); created resources (accommodation, restaurants, shopping facilities, entertainment areas, built heritage, special events); supporting or enabling factors (general and tourism related infrastructure, information and communications technologies, transport links, quality of service, friendliness of host population, government support for tourism development, market ties, health and hygiene, availability of finance and venture capital); destination management strategies (destination marketing management, positioning/branding, destination policy, planning and development, crisis management, rules and regulations, business strategies, human resource management, environmental management); demand conditions, including destination awareness/image and price competitiveness; and situational conditions that exist at any given time in both the operating situational conditions that exist at any given time in both the operating and wider environments (location, safety/security and carrying capacity). There is no fixed set of destination competitiveness indicators applicable to all destinations at all times. Application of a ranking system in meeting identified indicators enables comparison of the competitiveness of different destinations. All ranking systems require weighting schemes that require value judgements to be made concerning which objectives of tourism development are most valued by stakeholders.

While the ultimate objective of achieving a competitive tourism destination is to enhance resident well- being, the established frameworks continue to treat well- being outcomes in an ad hoc rather than strategic manner. Broader measures of social progress that go beyond the standard destination performance measures identified in the established frameworks have an essential role to play in destination competitiveness assessment. Distinguishing the sources of current and future well-being, also allows sustainability considerations to be embedded into the study of destination competitiveness. To date, the destination competitiveness research effort has failed to address the essential dynamics of the concept of sustainability, neglecting the role of changing capital stocks as sources of resident well-being. Given the centrality of resident well-being outcomes to destination competitiveness, tourism destinations must now face the challenge of attracting the ‘right type’ of customer – those who will enhance resident well-being outcomes. No longer can the ‘ideal tourist’ be regarded as simply a ‘big spender’. Expanding the capacity of tourism to enhance the wellbeing of destination communities, present and future, will require fundamental changes in attitudes to tourism planning, development, management and destination marketing. Expected outcomes include a more comprehensive view of the sources of destination competitiveness, greater clarity regarding the links between competitiveness and ‘well-being’, and identification of the appropriate instruments to enhance resident well-being over the longer term.

Professor Larry Dwyer,

Professor at University of Technology Sydney, Australia.

6 Background to the Governance Model Underlying the DTI Model

As will be seen in the coming pages, the governance pillar of the DTI model contemplates a series of areas of action and requirements for each one of them, encouraging the destinations that adopt this model to assume a specific governance style. This style of governance underlying the DTI model is the result of the different tourism policies that were implemented in Spain, addressed in chapter “Origin of the Spanish Smart Tourism Destinations Program,” and that have given rise to Spain as the tourism destination it is today.

The first relevant milestone to worth mentioning is the creation of the Tourism Boards and Municipal Tourism Institutes in the destinations, in the 1980s and 1990s, when policies focused particularly on promoting the destination. From this moment on, the destinations had their own structures for supporting tourism.

Following this milestone, at the end of the twentieth century, Spanish tourism policy sought to improve the competitiveness of destinations, enhancing their products and services as well as their international positioning, as reflected in the Plan Futures (1992–1996).

These plans were followed by the Comprehensive Plan for the Quality of Spanish Tourism (PICTE), 2000–2006, aimed at improving quality as the source of a competitive advantage.

After this came Spanish Tourism Plan Horizon 2020 (2008–2012), which continued on the path of reinforcing Spain’s tourism competitiveness, emphasizing the importance of innovation, while most importantly recognizing the need to make progress toward a model of sustainable tourism development in all its dimensions (Consejo de Ministros, Gobierno de España, 2007). Thus, the plan set out the following general objective:

Promoting the application of new methodologies and criteria for the planning and management of tourism destinations based on public-private joint responsibility, capable of integrating and developing a strategic vision of the tourism model that, from a market perspective, considers territorial development, environmental quality, the quality and professionalism of tourism services and social welfare (Spanish Tourism Plan Horizon, 2020, p. 58).

At this time, the Support Program for the Promotion of Destinations was launched, leading to the creation of “Mixed Tourism Management Entities,” which constituted the seed for the current governance model, set out in the National Integrated Tourism Plan (PNIT) 2012–2015 (Secretaria de Estado Comercio, Turismo y Pyme, 2000). This plan introduced the concept of the smart destination, giving rise to what is now known as the strategic smart destination management model. The document sets out what it means to be a “smart destination” and how being one contributes to the sustainable management of the destination, prioritizing the development of a high-quality tourism attractions, boosted by the adoption of ICT solutions in the provision of services.

At present, Spain’s 2030 Sustainable Tourism Strategy proposes a tourism growth model for the coming years based on the principles of:

• 1. Socio-economic growth, driven by the improvement of the competitiveness and profitability in the sector, making a commitment to quality, accelerated by the digital transformation process;

• 2. Preservation of natural and cultural resources, as a distinguishing strategic factor for maintaining the position and attractiveness of Spain’s tourism attractions;

• 3. Social benefit, pursuing the fair distribution of the sector’s benefits, while attempting to respond to problems such as the depopulation of rural areas in Spain;

• 4. Generalization of a system of participatory tourism governance, coordinating the necessary mechanisms for effective reciprocal cooperation by the state and the competent administrations across all levels.

With this in mind, the DTI model and its different lines of action can be traced back to the priorities that the Spanish tourism policy has identified over time as pillars and sources of competitive advantages for the sector. And in particular, the governance pillar is significantly influenced by the creation of Mixed Tourism Management Entities and the need to improve tourism competitiveness by structuring and positioning high-quality products and services, generated as part of a sustainable tourism development model. The next section analyzes and describes how the tourism governance system pursued by the strategic smart destination management (DTI) model has been designed to achieve these purposes.

7 The Pillar of Governance in the DTI Model

This section describes how the DTI model considers that the governance of tourism destinations should be constructed in such a way that their management is smart, while facilitating the achievement of their strategic objectives in the other pillars.

At present, following the most recent review performed in 2022, the governance pillar has gained relative weight compared to the other pillars, with said weight having increased from 11% of the total to 12.6% (SEGITTUR, 2021). As has been seen, the weight of each pillar in the smart destination model responds to the proportion of its requirements in relation to the other pillars. And so, the greater weight of the pillar indicates that the guidelines to be followed by destinations are higher for its governance to be considered “smart.” The increase in weight of this pillar responds to the belief that tourism governance is a decisive factor in the destination being competitive, which justifies greater attention.

We will now look at how the smart destination model divides the governance pillar into four areas of action. It also provides a detailed view of the requirements that the destination must meet in each area, as well as the indicators that the destination must verify to assess the extent to which it has achieved each of them. The main principles of the fields of work and their corresponding requirements are as follows: transparency and responsibility in management; the promotion of participation, aiming to involve all those interested/affected by the performance of tourism activity in the territory; effectiveness and efficiency to ensure that destination management is based on knowledge and strategic planning that optimizes the use of resources, identifies opportunities, and minimizes negative impacts and risks.

8 Areas of Action, Requirements, and Indicators as Part of the Smart Destination Governance Pillar

The four areas of action in the governance pillar identified by the smart destination model are as follows: (1) Vision, strategic planning and implementation; (2) Efficient management; (3) Transparency and participation; and (4) Responsibility and control. For each of these, the DTI model establishes requirements to be satisfied and indicators for monitoring compliance. By grouping the requirements into areas of action, it is possible to diagnose the destination, the preparation and coherence of the action plan defined for the destination, and its subsequent implementation and monitoring. The sections below set out the four areas of action in the field of destination governance.

8.1 Area of Action 1: Strategic Vision, Planning, and Implementation

This scope was introduced to protect the feasibility of tourism activity in the destination, ensuring that the DMOs use the planning tools and have the necessary organizational, regulatory, and budgetary resources to ensure the successful design and implementation of the destination’s strategic plans. With this in mind, the requirements identified for this area aim to: first and foremost, analyze whether the necessary conditions exist in the destination for its management structure, coordination between stakeholders, commitment, and political support, etc., to implement the plans defined; and secondly, whether the destination has specific strategic and marketing planning, with a reasonable allocation of resources, making it possible to develop products and services that make it stand out, allowing it to compete and position itself in the market accordingly.

Table 1 provides details of the requirements identified in this area, along with the indicators used to monitor their implementation.

Table 1 Pillar of governance in the smart destination model: Area 1 requirements and indicators

8.2 Area of Action 2: Efficient Management

This area includes requirements for assessing the efficiency of governance, depending on whether the objectives set are achieved with the available resources (Table 2). To this end, an analysis is performed of aspects such as: the professional qualifications of those involved in the implementation of the DTI model, based on the existence of continuous training programs and internal coordination tools, both between public and private tourism stakeholders and between the different administrations.

Table 2 Pillar of governance in the smart destination model: Area 2 requirements and indicators

8.3 Area of Action 3: Transparency and Participation

This area was introduced to safeguard the involvement of citizens and the sector in the tourism decision-making process, as well as coordination with other departments, agencies, and administrations. Its aim was also to ensure that this involvement occurs with due transparency. To this end, different cross-cutting actions are promoted, coordinated by the management body with other administrations and entities. To this end, the dialogue with the tourism sector and citizens is appraised as well as the existence of appropriate communication channels and the promotion of transparency and e-administration. The requirements established to this end as well as their indicators are described in Table 3.

Table 3 Pillar of governance in the smart destination model: Area 3 requirements and indicators

8.4 Area of Action 4: Responsibility and Control

The aim of this area is to ensure that destinations commit to continuous improvement, offering quality experiences to both tourists and residents, asking for their opinions as well as the opinions of businesspeople. In addition to assessing the actions implemented to this end, an assessment is also performed as to whether destinations monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their activities to promote tourism. These targets in area 4 of the governance pillar are divided into three requirements, listed in Table 4 with the corresponding indicators.

Table 4 Pillar of governance in the smart destination model: Area 4 requirements and indicators

9 The Governance Pillar in Practice: Recommendations

With a view to offering an idea of the practical implications of applying the pillar in tourism destinations that aspire to be a smart destination, as defined by SEGITTUR, this section sets out, by area of action (Tables 5–8), some of the most common recommendations made to destinations after the diagnosis phase, closing cycle 2 of the DTI model as described in Sect. 5.3 of chapter “Methodological Framework of the Spanish Smart Tourism Destinations Model.” The governance pillar contains “standard” recommendations for requirements with zero compliance, some of which are reflected in the following sections.

9.1 Main Recommendations, Area 1

Table 5

Table 5 Examples of recommendations for improving the governance of the destination in area 1

9.2 Main Recommendations, Area 2

Table 6

Table 6 Examples of recommendations for improving the governance of the destination in area 2

9.3 Main Recommendations, Area 3

Table 7

Table 7 Examples of recommendations for improving the governance of the destination in area 3

9.4 Main Recommendations, Area 4

Table 8

Table 8 Examples of recommendations for improving the governance of the destination in area 4

10 Lessons Learned in the Field of Innovation in Smart Tourism Destinations: Challenges

To bring this chapter dedicated to the governance pillar to a close, after one decade with the DTI model by SEGITTUR in place, based on the accumulated experience following its implementation, here we reflect on the main practical aspects of destination governance that currently reflect important issues that need to be resolved or improved, and subsequently, we anticipate a number of the strategic challenges that will arise for tourism in Spain in the years to come.

As part of the diagnoses performed for destinations in the DTI network, check chapter “The Spanish Smart Tourism Destination Network: A Nudge to Boost the Adoption of National Tourism Policies” for further information, the biggest defies in implementing the governance requirements are affected by two aspects: the reluctance and practical obstacles in relation to coordination within the organization itself and the limited resources (human and financial) available.

In terms of coordination, the real difficulty experienced by destinations in promoting participatory governance was detected, achieving strong communication between the different stakeholders (tourists, residents, private sector and public sector across all levels). It is often the case that within the managing organization of the destination, there are tourism departments or areas that are particularly isolated from the rest, without seeing any need for this to change, with tourism development considered as an activity focused on promotion, unrelated to the other services offered in the destination. With this in mind, the poor understanding of the entire system that is inherent to and that underlies a competitive tourism destination is to blame for this simplistic vision focusing on a single aspect of destination marketing: communication and promotion, putting aside the development of products and the strategy of commercialization/marketing, and what is most important: how the tourism experience is reliant on the quality of the tourism attraction as well as the reception capacity of the destination and the other non-tourism services that facilitate this. This fact is an important barrier in achieving efficient governance, which improves the competitiveness of the destination, as the actions that must be performed in terms of tourism governance are usually transversal (definition of a strategy, design actions, and diversification of the tourism attractions in the destination, training, identification of target markets, management of the carrying capacity, health and safety, waste management and noise and environmental pollution, etc.) and, by nature, these require consensus and transversal cooperation between all the managers of the different areas of the destination with an influence on tourism activity. Bearing these circumstances in mind, strengthening the political commitment to encouraging capable leadership, fomenting synergies, fostering coordination and cooperation, both public–private and public–public, is a priority for destinations. As a result of this commitment, it will be more feasible to reinforce the available tourism policy instruments, such as planning, budgets, etc., aimed at offering the necessary conditions for the sustainable and competitive development of the tourism sector in the destination.

Another critical aspect is human resources, since shortcomings have been identified in the destinations not only in terms of their qualification and training when it comes to handling changes in the organization that implies the adoption of the DTI model; furthermore, a clear imbalance has been observed between the weight of tourism activity in the destination and the staff assigned to its public management, which in many cases has been deemed insufficient. In this sense, one of the challenges to be addressed in the coming years will consist of identifying professional profiles associated with the tasks inherent to the smart management of tourism destinations and encouraging DMOs having the necessary resources to attract and/or train these profiles.

Finally, tourism destinations always face the same challenge, which is just as relevant as the two indicated above: structuring their tourism attractions, ensuring they are consistent with the strategic objectives of the destination and ensuring it genuinely stands out on the market based on the identity of the destination. To this end, knowledge management, innovation and tool development, including but not limited to tourism information systems, and harnessing the available technologies represent priority activities that must be addressed in the years to come. These tools facilitate the development of tourism attractions that consist of a portfolio of coherent tourism products and services, adapted to the target audience that the destination aims to appeal, as well as being sufficiently diversified, generating an extensive and in-depth portfolio of tourism services, capable of retaining and extending averages stay and tourists spending in the destination.

Appendix

Eduardo Parra López, Ph.D.,

Experienced Associate Professor with a demonstrated history of working in the higher education industry. Skilled in Web 2.0, Marketing Strategy, Tourism Management, Tourism, and Social Media. Strong operations professional with a Doctor focused in Business Studies and Tourism from Universidad de La Laguna.

Larry Dwyer, Ph.D.,

visiting Professor of Travel and Tourism Economics in the School of Marketing, Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Australia. He publishes widely in the areas of tourism economics, management and policy, with over 200 publications in international journals, books, government reports, chapters in books, and monographs. He has been awarded numerous research grants to contribute to tourism knowledge. Professor Dwyer is a Fellow and President of the International Academy for Study of Tourism, President of the International Association for Tourism Economics, and an appointed member of the International Advisory Board of the Business Enterprises for Sustainable Tourism Education Network (BESTEN). Professor Dwyer maintains strong links with the tourism industry at international, national, and regional levels. He has been invited to give numerous keynote addresses at international tourism conferences worldwide. He also has undertaken an extensive number of consultancies for public and private sector tourism organisations, and for international agencies, including the United Nations World Tourism Organisation. He is an appointed member of the Editorial Boards of twenty one international tourism journals.