Local stakeholders views about destination management: who are leading tourism

development?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to study how the local stakeholders of three different
tourism destinations consider who is responsible for the development of a tourism destination
(if identifiable) and why.

Design/methodology/approach This study takes a multiple case study approach. Three

different destinations are compared. A qualitative research method was chosen. The data are
based on the interviews of tourism and wellbeing professionals (tourism entrepreneurs,
experts and regional developers).

Findings The interview results suggest that destination leadership seems to be context-
dependent. Competition, co-operation and coopetition all occur in different forms in different
regions. Various kinds of co-operation are distinguishable between stakeholders of case
regions, and the level of leadership among actors varies in the regions; one region is strongly
managed by marketing company, while on other the co-operative store chain is apparently
dominant. The roles of local educational institutes also varied depending on the case area. In
addition, some entry barriers were identified.

Research limitations/implications The data were collected three to four years ago, so
some changes in the areas and in the roles and relationships of diverse stakeholders may
have occurred. Practical implications By identifying challenges faced in diverse regions
diverse destination managers can identify challenges likely to occur at destinations with similar
management structures. Originality/value The paper discusses the challenges and roles of
diverse stakeholders in destination management by using empirical cases.

Keywords Competition, Co-operation, Destination management, Entry barriers, Coopetition,

DMOs, Local stakeholders

1. Introduction

Destinations are a fundamental feature of tourism research (Pearce, 2013) and are
traditionally defined as geographical areas, such as a country, an island or a town (Burkart
and Medlik, 1974; Davidson and Maitland, 1997; Hall, 2000). Tourist destination is defined as
a location which attracts tourists to stay temporarily in the area. The destination includes
features that inherently contribute to the attraction (Flognfeldt, 2005). Buhalis (2000, p. 97)
highlights that:

[. . .] it is increasingly recognized that a destination can also be a perceptual concept, which

can be interpreted subjectively by consumers, depending on their travel itinerary, cultural
background, purpose of visit, educational level and past experience.

Tourism destinations have also been regarded as a combination of products, services and
tourism experiences provided locally (Buhalis, 2000; Cooper et al., 1998) or as a unit of action
where different private and public stakeholders, e.g. companies and public organizations,
interact (Saraniemi and Kylnen, 2011; Bregoli and Del Chiappa, 2013). From the marketing
management perspective (Kotler et al., 1999), destinations are considered to be a traditional
commodity product and, therefore, agglomerations of facilities and services designed to meet
the needs of tourists (Cooper et al., 2005; Saraniemi and Kylnen, 2011).

Several studies highlight the role of a destination marketing/management organization (DMO)

at a destination. For instance, Buhalis (2000, p. 108) says that DMOs have overall
responsibility for the entire destination product and through incentives and policies facilitate
the development of products, create local partnerships for the delivery of seamless
experiences. It is, moreover, noted that DMOs may also provide leadership to set an overall
direction for the development of a sustainable tourism destination (Dwyer and Kim, 2003;
Bregoli and Del Chiappa, 2013). However, the roles of DMOs in diverse tourism destinations
may vary greatly. In some regions, the DMO may have a very prominent role in destination
development, while in other areas the DMO may only have a minor role in marketing a
destination. It also needs to be considered that in some areas there may be no DMOs at all.
Who is then responsible for the development of a destination?

Three different destinations are compared here. The areas chosen represent different types
of tourism destinations in Finland. The aim of the paper is to study how the local stakeholders
of three different tourism destinations consider who is responsible for the development of a
tourism destination (if identifiable) and why. The second aim is to examine how co-operation
and competition occur within different destinations. The third aim is to ascertain what entry
barriers exist for newcomers in the regions.

The paper starts with a literature review focusing on destination management, networking and
destination development as well as dynamics in networking. This is followed by background
information on the case areas and methodological approach. The results are then presented
and discussed before their implications are considered.

2. Issues in destination management and co-operation: literature review

A tourism destination is a significant construct for the examination of tourism with a

geographically bounded locality, in which both economic and social interactions occur (Tinsley
and Lynch, 2007). Destinations are traditionally defined as geographical areas, such as a
country, an island or a town (Hall, 2000). In this study, destination is defined as a geographical
area including various tourism products and services and the prerequisites needed for
realizing them.

The increasing significance of the role of governance has led both researchers and
practitioners to focus on analyzing the social relationships between government, businesses
and civil society (Del Chiappa and Presenza, 2013). Governance in this case is defined as
Williamson and Ouchi (1981) as a mode of organizing transactions. To gain a good
understanding of the governance of certain tourism destinations, it is essential to analyze the
local stakeholders and to assess to what extent they interact and collaborate with each other.

Increasing competition in the tourism industry has led to a situation in which destinations find
themselves competing against other destinations at the regional, national and international
levels (Presenza et al., 2005). Consequently, the role of DMOs has become more significant
as organizers and facilitators for marketing and development actions (Wang, 2011). Komppula
(2014) argues that the role of DMOs has been overemphasized in models of destinations, as
in several regions DMOs have, in practice, no influence. In any case, DMOs need to
understand their role and functions, in general, and, particularly, the relationships with the local
tourism industry (Wang, 2011).

Tourism industry organizations are extremely fragmented, dispersed and heterogeneous

(Tasci, 2011). In addition to DMOs, destinations include several other stakeholders, e.g. local
government, tourism offices, chambers of commerce, public and private suppliers,
associations and organizations as well as educational institutions specializing in tourism.
Stakeholder theory focuses on the relationships among and management of stakeholders
within a destination (Freeman, 1984; Sautter and Leisen, 1999; Ryan, 2002; Heitmann, 2010).
According to Donaldson and Preston (1995), any person or group with an interest in the
organizations activity is referred to as a stakeholder. Stakeholders can be divided into different
categories depending on not only their level of interest and their potential to influence the
decision-making process of an organization (Heitmann, 2010) but also on the destination level.
In destination management, full appreciation of all stakeholders with interests in the planning,
process and delivery as well as the outcomes of the tourism service should be taken into
account (Sautter and Leisen, 1999) and consideration should be given to each stakeholder,
irrespective of the level of interest and power held. Heitmann (2010) states that there are three
key aspects in the management of the stakeholders involved. First of all, stakeholders and
their subjectively perceived contribution need to be identified. Processes required to manage
stakeholders need to be established, and transactions or bargains among the organization
and its stakeholders need to be managed (Freeman, 1984). However, the different
stakeholders are not homogenous entities and there are significant overlaps between them
(e.g. local community residents own local businesses or are involved in the management of
the destination).

In the tourism literature, networks and networking have received relatively little attention
(Tinsley and Lynch, 2007). Del Chiappa and Presenza (2013) divide this growing interest in
networking into two main streams of purpose. First, networks are agreed to provide a useful
framework for analyzing the growth of businesses, product development, packaging and
opportunities for future development (Tinsley and Lynch, 2001; Del Chiappa and Presenza,
2013). Second, networks are deemed an important channel for managing public private
relationships and understanding the structures of tourism and destination governance (Tyler
and Dinan, 2001; Del Chiappa and Presenza, 2013).

Without collaboration, small- and medium-sized tourism enterprises (SMTEs) will not be able
to maintain their competitiveness. Gibson et al. (2005) define tourism networks as a set of
relationships between individuals and various groups as formal, semi-formal and informal. In
this paper, a network is understood to be a form of mutually beneficial (win win) co-operation
between several actors, in which all the parties involved know who belongs to the network and
in which the parties interact with each other (Komppula, 2000).

Partnerships abound in tourism and partnership working is seen as common practice (Thomas,
2007). The private sector is the main actor in the development of tourism destinations,
including hotels, accommodation, catering, transportation, marketing, sellers, renters and
tenants (Hjalager et al., 2011). The public sector, however, is needed, especially in planning,
and land use policies are, thus, essential supplementary measures (Pechlaner et al., 2009).
Komppula (2000) grouped the network members according to their commitment. An issue-
based network consists of an embedded and representational structure. Furthermore, an
issue-based network can be seen as a network based on long-term cooperation between
individual companies. Commitment to the cooperation develops during the process and the
commitment to a regional network evolves through local networks close to the company. A
companys position in a network is defined through its commitment and the position also
depends on how much money and effort it is willing to invest in the network. Reciprocal trust
among actors is the most important precondition for a high level of commitment.

Ones commitment towards development correlates positively with ones willingness to invest.
According to Pechlaner et al. (2003), such investments also concentrate on creating joint value
for competition-oriented co-operation within the network. The more a network partner is able
to create such value, the stronger the position of the partner within the system.

Tourism businesses and other stakeholders may have different relationships at a destination.
On the one hand, they may compete with each other, e.g. for customers, but on other hand,
they may co-operate, e.g. in marketing to attract more visitors to the destination. A relationship
that includes aspects of competition and co-operation is referred to as coopetition (Bengtsson
and Kock, 2000). Watkins and Bell (2002) have discussed the relationship of tourism
stakeholders and the levels of competition and co-operation. Wang and Krakover (2008) have
adapted the ideas of Watkins and Bell (2002) and developed them further. Wang and Krakover
(2008) state that coopetition takes place at the interface of competition and co-operation. They
name four forms of co-operation from the lowest, affiliation, to the highest, strategic networks.
Affiliation includes informal exchange of information and endorsements. In this case, the co-
operation relies, as in many cases, on personal relationships. The next level is coordination,
in which stakeholders are pursuing individual business goals through coordinating activities
with other compatible businesses (Wang and Krakover, 2008, p. 131). In this case,
businesses and stakeholders match their own interests to the interests of others. The third
level is collaboration. This involves developing joint strategies that benefit several
stakeholders, including commitments to the marketing operations of a destination. The fourth
and most intensive form of co-operation is strategic networks. Strategic networks aim at
[s]triving for long-term shared vision and strategy for the destination at large (Wang and
Krakover, 2008, p. 131). There are several issues that affect the level of co-operation, namely,
the maturity of the destination marketing approach, the leadership of the local DMO, the range
of the marketing campaign and the focus of strategic thinking (Wang and Krakover, 2008).

Fyall et al. (2012) discuss the dimensions of destination collaboration. They examine the
collaboration within a destination and between destinations. They divide the collaboration
according to whether a DMO has a role in it. They refer to collaboration taking place
independently without the facilitation of a DMO as organic collaboration. This may take place
either within a destination or between destinations. Collaboration facilitated by a DMO within
a destination is called mediated intra-destination collaboration. In addition, a DMO may
facilitate collaboration between destinations, which is known as mediated intra-and inter-
destination collaboration (Fyall et al., 2012).

3. Method and data

3.1 Data and methods
This study takes a multiple case study approach. According to Herriott and Firestone (1983,
cited in Yin, 2003, p. 46) the evidence yielded by multiple cases is usually seen to be more
compelling, and, thus, the overall study is considered more robust. In this study, the cases are
selected in the anticipation of contrasting results, which are predicted due the different
characteristics of the selected case destinations (the case destinations are introduced in
Section 3.2 below).

The data collection of the cases was done using thematic interviews. The interview is among
the most popular of qualitative methods used in leisure, recreation and tourism research
(Ruddell, 2011). The goal of the thematic interviews was to achieve a more profound
understanding of the roles and relationships of diverse stakeholders at three different tourism
destinations. The empirical data were collected in three case areas in Finland. To get different
perspectives from the public and private sectors, one-third of the interviewees were tourism
professionals, such as regional developers, one-third tourism entrepreneurs and the one-third
tourism experts. They were selected, as they were deemed to play an important role in tourism
development in their respective areas. Rather than using random sampling, the interviewees
were selected from the list of local stakeholders and the selection was based on their active
role in the regional development actions.

Thirty-six interviews were conducted in late-2009 and early-2010. The number of interviews
was rather high, but it was deemed important to interview different types of actors from each
area. In addition, the aim was to ascertain the roles of the diverse stakeholders and examine
the forms of co-operation at the destinations. The interview questions were drawn from the
theories of destination development and co-operation. The tone of the interviews was informal
and conversational. The interviews took from 27 minutes to 2 hours. They were taped and
later transcribed and analyzed. The thematic questionnaire included questions, e.g. on
networking and co-operation in the case regions, the structure of the business environment,
locomotive entrepreneurs, competitiveness, competition, co-operation, sources of information
and the utilization of information in their development processes.
This paper presents only the results on the specific issues, i.e. how different stakeholders
analyze and assess the roles and responsibilities of public and private tourism developers in
their region. The topics raised in the literature review were used as guiding principles for the
case descriptions and analysis. The transcribed data were read and re-read to identify
keywords. The data were classified and grouped by the authors. Grouping was based on both
the questions presented and keywords from respondents responses.

3.2 Case areas

The case areas, in this study, were selected from different parts of Finland, all of them
characterized by some local specialty or attraction. The regions chosen have different profiles
both in the type of landscape and also in the nature of their tourist seasons. The areas are
Jyvskyl Region (later referred as Region 1), Vuokatti/Kainuu Region (Region 2) and
Savonlinna Region (Region 3) (Figure 1). Jyvskyl Region is situated in the middle of the
Finnish Lakeland area and the lake landscape dominates, while in Vuokatti and Kainuu Region
the terrain is mostly hilly with ski slopes in winter. Savonlinna, for its part, has a strong historical
background, is situated close to the Russian border and also has lake scenery. Tourism in
Jyvskyl Region is characterized by fairs, sports events and diverse tourism resorts, while
Vuokatti/Kainuu Region is strongly profiled as a winter destination with winter activities and
Savonlinna as a summer destination with cultural events and lake tourism activities.

4. Results
4.1 Leaders of tourism development at diverse tourism destinations
All three regions had a different management structure; Region 1 was driven mainly by public
actors, while Regions 2 and 3 were driven by both public and private actors. The difference
between the last two regions was that in Region 2, the private sector was emphasized more
strongly than in Region 3.

In Region 1, several leading stakeholders were found depending on the tourism sector. An
international rally was reportedly a leader among events, while for meetings and conferences
the congress and fair center was important. A local co-operative was seen as a real tourism
player due their many activities in the hotel, accommodation, retail and hospitality businesses.
In addition, the company used their predominance in investments and other development
actions. The active and supporting role of the regional development company was highly
valued in different phases of various development processes and the important role of the
regional council was also mentioned. This was closely connected to financial support. The
interviewees mentioned the prominent role of the local university of applied sciences in
development actions. This role was seen to be contradictory in implementing tourism R&D
actions in the regions. Some respondents saw their role as supporting and positive, while
others mentioned the role as too strong. From the private sector, two bigger and three smaller
tourism clusters were mentioned as leaders. In addition, one family-owned business with a
strong export emphasis on sauna heaters was mentioned as an example of co-operation
transcending sectoral borders. To summarize, in Region 1, a change in leadership was
identified. Tourism development had formerly been mostly led by public and semipublic
development actors like the universities of applied sciences, universities or development
companies, while now the transformation towards business-led leadership was becoming
more evident. As one interviewee from educational sector said:

[. . .] the transformation from traditional tourism development led by marketing organizations

and development companies into business-led development work is in process in Jyvskyl
region. The role of business networks is in growth while the role of development companies is
decreasing (F2J, free translation by the authors).

In Region 2, the prominent role of a marketing company emerged and was seen as a driving
company of the area. Businesses were heavily involved in joint marketing and actions. In
general, the interviewees were satisfied with the situation, even though the powerful role of a
marketing company was recognized. As one entrepreneur said:

[. . .] there could be many different opinions on that leadership and how it is driven, but
nevertheless they have succeeded in Vuokatti in creating a brand and making it [. . .] [. . .] but
its time to get a flow of customers from somewhere else [. . .] (M9V, free translation by the
authors).

In addition, two hotel chains dominate in the region, together with two private intermediaries.
One of the hotel chains is a co-operative, while the other is more focused on timesharing.
Other leading partners mentioned were a sports hotel and training center with a marked
emphasis on development actions. In addition to aforementioned businesses, a company
running the skiing slope business in winter and the DMO were mentioned as tourism
developers in the area.

In Region 3, the development was clearly led by the actions of the municipality. The town had
implemented various tourism development measures and the development had been guided
by political decisions. No clear driver businesses were found due to the fragmented business
environment and competition between businesses. As one tourism expert said: I cant name
any; there are none. Several actors in different areas [. . .] (F7S, free translation by the
authors). Some interviewees mentioned two privately owned business networks as leaders. In
addition, in the wellbeing sector, one bigger network of four wellbeing and rehabilitation centers
was seen as a leader. Other actors mentioned in this context were an innovation center, the
local university unit in tourism, the DMO and one bigger event in summertime.

4.2 Competitiveness and competition within the areas

The competition between companies was mostly reported to be on a healthy basis, but
challenging. Differences between regions and among respondents with different backgrounds
were found.

In Region 1, the general manager of a ski business considered that the situation could be seen
to be positive, as healthy competition between companies can also be turned into an
invigorating factor to motivate businesses to engage in networking and co-operating better on
a reasonable scale with bigger businesses. The representatives of the local development
company, in turn, considered that the competition situation in the region was challenging. This
was explained by the presence of some strong actors, like the regional co-operative company
operating in the area. The general manager of an event organization commented that in
Region 1 the only competition was in event tourism and the conference sector. In other tourism
sectors, he did not perceive the region as a tourism destination at all. A representative of one
educational institution said that among entrepreneurs the competition existed particularly in
their minds, but not in practice, and that the quality of tourism products was poor: if the quality
of the products does not improve, there will be no [competition](F2J, free translation by the
authors). It also emerged that the competition in the market was not evident: if the real
competition is not recognized, where the markets in fact exist, from this point of view, it
[competition] is still hidden or imperceptible(F2J, free translation by the authors). This was
supported by a comment:

[. . .] here is a lot of hidden [tourism] potential that could be trendy [. . .] [. . .] we have

competitiveness, in my opinion, it is just not seen, on a Nordic level, even more latent (F9J,
free translation by the authors).

It was evident that the common marketing actions of Region 2 brought stakeholders to work
together and thus balanced the competitiveness in the region; everything is based on common
marketing. Everybody puts their eggs in one basket [common marketing] [. . .] (M2V, free
translation by the authors). One entrepreneur was of the opinion that the actors in the region
did not even know what competition really is. However, tough competition in the
accommodation business was mentioned, e.g. one entrepreneur said that two main
intermediaries dominated the region very strongly and newcomers had to work hard to gain a
share. Another entrepreneur emphasized this by saying that in the region the big chains had
strong interests and a myriad of small businesses are trying to balance between the big ones.
It was also stated by the representative of the development company that the competition in
the area was more in the power structures than in the businesses. According to one business
representative, there were some individuals who would like to use their power, but those
currently wielding power also foiled all new attempts to access the power structures. He
summarized that, in fact, there was no competition, but certain quarters wield power. And
while you are in a power hierarchy power wielders defend themselves by playing hidden
games (M3V, free translation by the authors). Besides, it was added that the competition was
more a question of attitude.

The need for investors was seen as a prerequisite for future competitiveness. As one
developer claimed:

[. . .] we have to make our own effort and support one another [. . .] [. . .] Vuokatti is even a
benchmarking destination for some, so we have competition [. . .] [. . .] yes, it is a disadvantage
if people come here and we cannot accommodate them[. . .] (F8V, free translation by the
authors),

referring to the inadequate accommodation capacity in Region 2. From another point of view
in the region there were no so-called business angels behind the investments as there are in
Finnish Lapland. One notable point in the region was that the dominant marketing company
perceived no problems in the region due to the joint marketing actions.

In Region 3, some entrepreneurs perceived that partly due to the publicly-led development
work, and partly because of poor co-operation and networking the region was in a stagnation
phase. Competition between entrepreneurs was seen, in general, as a threat rather than as
an opportunity. Moreover, the business environment in Region 3 was reportedly very
fragmented due to a lot of small businesses operating in their own niches. As one entrepreneur
said: In my opinion this is terribly fragmented, so that there are, you know, a lot of little
businesses operating there in their own holes (M2S, free translation by the authors). However,
it was noteworthy that in the region there are two fairly strong private business networks with
outdoor activities and high-quality tourism services. A third business network of four former
rehabilitation centers had also found a way to engage in winwin co-operation with new
business areas.
On the local level, the strategic development is mainly in the hands of public actors in Region
3. The roles of the municipal administration and the regional federation of municipalities have
a prominent role in local planning and development actions. This role was highly appreciated
in connection with destination policy and planning. However, the publicly led development was
seen to be more negative when recruiting and starting up new businesses in the area.

4.3 Entry barriers to new businesses

Entry barriers for new businesses in all regions were, in general, seen to be fairly low, although
some contradictory opinions were expressed. In Region 1, one entrepreneur considered the
situation more widely. According to her, the entry barriers were low from the viewpoint of
Central Finland, but at the resorts in the region she perceived the entry barriers to be slightly
higher.

In all regions, newcomers are welcome to invest. It became evident, in all cases, that the local
business capacities are not enough for the expanding tourism business or to ensure sufficient
tourist flows. The need for new investments in tourism facilities was also lowering the entry
barriers in all regions. This was supported by both public and private actors in all regions; there
is no local money available for investments and investments are not only needed to increase
the accommodation capacity but also to develop the new customer segments and customer
flows. One entrepreneur in Region 2 saw the investments and an increase in the number of
beds as a critical issue rather than a matter of quality, which should be more important.
According to him good quality should come before the number of beds, but at the moment no
one in the area is talking about quality (M10V, free translation by the authors).

In particular, the need for entrepreneurs providing supplementary services, like program
services and food and beverage businesses (Regions 1 and 2) and hotel and accommodation
businesses (Region 2), was emphasized. This was justified by a hotel manager who stated
that there was a need to raise the service levels in a situation where accommodation capacity
was increased, but the services offered were lagging behind. The regions welcomed people
with new good business ideas with added value for the existing businesses. The challenges
mentioned in all regions were the need for new product development with new flows of
customers (Region 1) and new supporting business activities (all regions). The universal
economic stagnation was evinced as a reason for low willingness to invest and interest in
entering the region, especially in Region 1. In Regions 2 and 3, the main challenges faced
were in the operating environment. Competition in the areas was mentioned by entrepreneurs.
Two major hotel chains dominated, and the small businesses as well as the newcomers in
Region 2 were crushed between these bigger operators, while in Region 3 the fragmented
operating environment and the short season were deemed non-attractive. Customer flows
were mentioned as one inhibiting issue in Region 1. Bigger customer flows were needed to
expand tourism activities, as the region was very fragmented due to the large number of
businesses in tourism. The bigger problem in Region 1, according to representative of the
DMO, was that there were no eager newcomers willing to invest or to produce new business
ideas. A similar situation prevailed in Region 3.

The roles of public or political institutions served to lower entry barriers. Especially in Region
1, local political decision-making and the generally positive attitude to entrepreneurship were
believed to support new investment and businesses. In addition, the regional development
company and regional council were mentioned as supporters of newcomers in long-term
development work. In Region 2, the role of political institutions was largely the same even
though public planning problems were recognized as a barrier or as a cause of delay. The
powerful hidden game among private and public actors may also detract from the
attractiveness of Region 2. One project developer also mentioned the problems in municipal
planning as an entry barrier, especially in the context of physical investments. This was
supported by a representative of provincial government, who said that the entry of investors
in the area has been impeded by planning problems [. . .] [. . .] planning has not progressed
as future states of will might wish [. . .] (F9V, free translation by the authors). On the other
hand, it was considered that public administration could give support and attract newcomers
to the region.

In Region 3, the powerful role of the municipality was seen as a critical issue. The development
work especially was led by the public authorities. The municipal planning policy was also found
to restrict access to investments in the region. Moreover, many small-sized businesses
operated in the region, and this was seen as fragmenting the operating environment and
leading to a situation which might constitute an entry barrier to new businesses.

The summary of structures of influence and competencies as well as different actors and their
roles in all three case regions can be found in Table AI.

5. Discussion and implications

According to most of the interviewees, the competition in Region 1 depends on the business
sector. The competition is fierce among those businesses operating in the business-to-
business sector. The dominant position of the local co-operative in Region 1 was seen as an
impediment to free competition. The results show that there are various kinds of co-operation
between actors in the regions. Competition, co-operation and coopetition (Wang and Krakover,
2008) all occur in different forms in different regions. In Region 2, the strategic network in
marketing connects actors to collaborate, and the transformation from competition to
cooperation was noticed. In Region 3, the competition between businesses was likewise fierce
and the benefits of cooperation were recognized, but for some reason not implemented in daily
practices. There is also a lack of trust.

The three case regions pointed out that destination leadership seems to be context-
dependent. In addition, the level of leadership among the stakeholders in the regions varied;
one region was firmly managed by a marketing company, while in another the co-operative
chain predominated. There were also differences in the influence exerted by the local
educational institutions.

The role of different actors varies within regions. One assumption behind this is the varying
operating culture and power relations between stakeholders. Region 2 exemplifies a region
whose development is led by powerful actors, while in Region 3 the fragmented operating
environment has led to a situation in which there are several actors with fragmented roles. We
could ask, if this has led to the situation that the municipality assuming a stronger role in the
regional development in Region 3. Region 1 could be positioned between these two.

It was interesting to note that the role of destination marketing and management organizations
was not emphasized at all in Regions 1 and 3. The DMOs were mentioned, but they were not
seen as a leading actor for destination development (Komppula, 2014). However, the roles of
DMOs may vary widely, and it seems that they are perceived in the areas, mainly, as
destination marketing organizations not necessarily involved in the management of the area.
The public sectors (municipal and regional governments) as well as regional development
companies seem to have a greater role and more responsibility in developing the destinations.
Their role is also crucial as facilitators of entrepreneurial environment, but without innovative,
committed and risk-taking entrepreneurs destinations cannot flourish (Komppula, 2014). It
seems that in this case study tourism businesses, especially micro and small-sized tourism
enterprises, feel that they are in a way excluded from the development processes. In Region
3, especially it was evident that the businesses focus on developing their operations alone.
However, they hope to have a stronger leader in the area with a clear mission and leadership
in developing tourism in the area. It seems that so far the DMO has not taken a leading role in
this. This is supported by Komppula (2014), who claims that DMOs are unable to operate
efficiently if the entrepreneurs are unwilling or unable to collaborate, or, as in this case, they
feel that they have been sidelined from the development. Many studies and theories
emphasize the role of DMOs at destinations, but the cases show that the role of the DMO may
not be equally important at all tourism destinations.

An issue-based marketing network, as in the case of Region 2, can be seen as a network

based on long-term cooperation between individual companies. The commitment of both
public and private local stakeholders to the co-operation and regional development is one
major reason behind the success story of Region 2. However, it may be that power struggles
between actors are undermining this commitment at some level.

The entry barriers to new businesses in all regions were, in general, fairly low, particularly in
the case of new investments and new business ideas supporting and complementing existing
businesses. Conversely, higher barriers appeared among those cases where newcomers
were seen as competitors to existing business. The role of public actors was seen as
supporting and lowering entry barriers. From the destination management point of view, the
concern may rather be, if lower entry barriers may lead to a deterioration of the quality of
existing services.

This study contributes to the destination management literature by discussing the roles of
diverse stakeholders in destination management. The study suggests that destination
leadership is (apparently) context-dependent with different destination management cultures
at all case destinations. The unique characteristics (regional, political, business environment,
etc.) of each destination have an influence on the destination management strategies. Earlier
studies have suggested and emphasized the strong leading role of destination management
organizations in destination management and marketing (Buhalis, 2000; Dwyer and Kim,
2003; Bregoli and Del Chiappa, 2013). However, in this study, the role of DMOs varied widely
in the case regions and the leaders of the destination development were frequently not the
DMOs. The regional development companies and municipalities seem to play a decisive role
in management.

This study also has practical implications. By identifying challenges faced in diverse regions,
diverse destination managers can identify challenges likely to occur at destinations with similar
management structures. To summarize the findings, the more investments are made in a
region, the more customers and customer flows are directed to that region, the bigger driving
businesses and the bigger turnovers and profits are to be expected. The challenge in all
regions is how the assets and resources should, in future, be turned into co-operation,
networking and, most of all, into salable tourism products.
The study focused on discussing three case areas and their respective managements. The
data were collected three to four years ago, so some changes in the areas and in the roles
and relationships of diverse stakeholders may have occurred in the interim.