Destination

The destination is the fundamental unit of analysis in any modeling of a tourism system (Pike
2008) used for understanding the tourism phenomenon.
A growing research stream has recognized that destinations are complex dynamic systems
whose characteristics need to be analyzed and understood in order to better address planning
and management actions (Baggio, Scott, and Cooper 2010a; Baggio 2014; Bornhorst, Ritchie,
and Sheehan 2010). Similarly, Jamal and Jamrozy (2006) affirmed that destinations can be
viewed as complex systems in which different stakeholders influence the decision-making
processes, although no one individual stakeholder can entirely control tourism development and
planning. However, Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser (2014, p. 403) pointed out that “translating the
concepts and notions of the complex phenomenon of the destination into practical implications
for destination management and planning today raises nearly insoluble contradictions.”

this regard, a number of researchers underline that destination is problematic to

define as a concept (Framke 2002; Saraniemi and Kylänen 2011), depending on the
background of the scholars and the purpose of research (Pearce and Schänzel
2013). Recently, Pearce (2014, p. 141) observed that the conceptualization of
destination has practical implications for destination management since “the nature
and the scope of the concepts used may determine the focus of management, who
or what is managed, where management priorities lie, and where solutions might be
found.” Therefore, he argues that considering a destination as an open or a closed
system rather than an entity complete in itself influences the destination management
organization (DMO).

The geographical dimension of a destination is often associated to blurred

boundaries since they can include a single place or a network of different locations
(Dredge 1999) to form a larger destination (Lew and McKercher 2006). In this
respect, from the supply-side perspective, the spatial dimension can be defined
either by administrative conditions or by strategic cooperation among different
destinations, even if tourists do not notice administrative boundaries during traveling,
as Klepers and Rozite (2010) found in their research. Changing the market
viewpoint, Buhalis (2000) noted that a destination can also be considered a
perceptual concept, subjectively interpreted by tourists on the base of different
elements, such as their travel itinerary, cultural background, motivations behind the
visit, education, and past experience. More recently, Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser
 (2014, p. 406) affirmed that a destination is a heterogeneous context, “the
playground of different supply networks activated by visitor flows at different times of
the year (week) and with different durations,” defined by these scholars as a space of
“variable geometry.” As a consequence, there is a debate in literature whether the
geographic boundaries of a destination are fixed or fluid, functional or administrative
(Pearce and Schänzel 2013), while, on the other hand, it has been observed that the
geographical size of a destination affects the DMO functions, activities, and
budgeting (Bieger, Beritelli, and Laesser 2009).

Pike, S. (2008). Destination Marketing: An Integrated Marketing Communication Approach. Oxford,

UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Baggio, R., Scott, N., Cooper, C. (2010a). “Improving Tourism Destination Governance: A
Complexity Science Approach.”Tourism Review, 65 (4): 51-60.
Baggio R. (2014). “Complex Tourism Systems: A Visibility Graph Approach.” Kybernetes, 43 (3/4): 445-61.

Bornhorst T., Ritchie J. R. B., Sheehan L. (2010). “Determinants of Tourism Success for DMOs & Destinations: An
Empirical Examination of Stakeholders’ Perspectives.” Tourism Management, 31 (5): 572-89.

Jamal T., Jamrozy U. (2006). “Collaborative Networks and Partnerships for Integrated Destination Management.” In
Tourism Management Dynamics: Trends, Management and Tools, edited by Buhalis D., Costa C. Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 164-72.

Beritelli P., Bieger T., Laesser C. (2014). “The New Frontiers of Destination Management: Applying Variable
Geometry as a Function-Based Approach.” Journal of Travel Research, 53 (4): 403-17.

Framke W. (2002). “The Destination as a Concept: A Discussion of the Business-Related Perspective versus the
Socio-Cultural Approach in Tourism Theory.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2 (2): 92-108.

Saraniemi S., Kylänen M. (2011). “Problematizing the Concept of Tourism Destination: An Analysis of Different
Theoretical Approaches.” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (2): 133-43.

Pearce D. G., Schänzel H. A. (2013). “Destinations: Tourists’ Perspectives from New Zealand.” International Journal
of Tourism Research. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1955.

Pearce D. G. (2014). “Toward an Integrative Conceptual Framework of Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 53
(2): 141-53.

Dredge D. (1999). “Destination Place Planning and Design.” Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (4): 772-91.

Lew A., McKercher B. (2006). “Modelling Tourist Movements: A Local Destination Analysis.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 33 (2): 403-23.

Klepers A., Rozite M. (2010). “Administrative Borders as a Challenge in Spatial Aspects of Tourism Competitiveness.”
In Constructing Central Europe Tourism Competitiveness, edited by Clarke A. Veszprém: University Press, University
of Pannonia, pp. 23-33.

Buhalis D. (2000). “Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future.” Tourism Management, 21 (1): 97-116.

Beritelli P., Bieger T., Laesser C. (2014). “The New Frontiers of Destination Management: Applying Variable
Geometry as a Function-Based Approach.” Journal of Travel Research, 53 (4): 403-17.
Pearce D. G., Schänzel H. A. (2013). “Destinations: Tourists’ Perspectives from New Zealand.” International Journal
of Tourism Research. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1955.

Bieger T., Beritelli P., Laesser C. (2009). “Size Matters! Increasing DMO Effectiveness and Extending Tourism
Destination Boundaries.” Tourism Review, 57 (3): 309-27.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0047287515569777

Urban Tourism

In a world where more than half of the population already lives in cities and more than 90% of urban
growth is occurring in the developing world (Licciardi and Amirtahmasebi, 2012),

cities have the potential to serve as incubators of innovation and technology. However, there are also
many challenges for cities that can be classified into economic, environmental and social threats.
(Surin˜ach, & Wo¨ber, 2017)

The ‘smart city’ paradigm, which has been adopted by many cities worldwide, represents an
environment where innovation and technology supplement activities and services of a city in order to
provide benefits to the residents and visitors (Surin˜ach, & Wo¨ber, 2017)

In Europe, initiatives for sustainable development of cities have been characterized and defined by a
number of factors including environmental sustainability, economic development and a high quality of
life (Surin˜ach, & Wo¨ber, 2017)

cities often struggle to modernize without losing the unique character embodied in their downtowns
and historic centres. One of the problems most frequently raised is that cities are in danger of losing
their authenticity. (Surin˜ach, & Wo¨ber, 2017)

conservation and continued use of cultural heritage may provide the basis for the needed authenticity.
Many cities worldwide have therefore looked into the opportunities to further develop their cultural
tourism offerings. (Surin˜ach, & Wo¨ber, 2017)

Surin˜ach, Jordi ., Wo¨ber, Karl. (2017). Introduction to the special focus: Cultural tourism and
sustainable urban development. Tourism Economics 2017, Vol. 23(2) 239–242 ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1354816616656245
journals.sagepub.com/home/teu

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354816616656245

Heritage

Inheritage places, this means managing and resolving the dominance of tourist activities over local
needs and aspirations, reflected in the transformation of land uses and buildings, the disruptive use of
public and private space, changing ownership patterns, and the externalising of the local economy.
(Nasser, 2003)
file:///D:/Jurnal%202018%20bahan%20publikasi%20bebas/jurnal%20disrtasiku/0885412203017004001.
pdf

Noha Nasser. (2003). Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and
Sustainable Development. Journal of Planning Literature,Vol.17,No.4. DOI:10.1177/0885412203251149
Copyright © 2003 by Sage Publications