Accepted Manuscript

Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness? Evidence from theItalian Destinations of Excellence

Marco Cucculelli, Gianluca Goffi

PII: S0959-6526(14)01366-3

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.069

Reference: JCLP 5040

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 30 November 2013

Revised Date: 8 November 2014

Accepted Date: 21 December 2014

Please cite this article as: Cucculelli M, Goffi G, Does sustainability enhance tourism destinationcompetitiveness? Evidence from the Italian Destinations of Excellence, Journal of Cleaner Production(2015), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.069.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness? Evidence from the Italian Destinations of Excellence

Marco Cucculelli Department of Economics and Social Sciences

Università Politecnica delle Marche Piazzale Martelli, 8, 60100 Ancona, Italy

Ph: +39-071-2207162 - m.cucculelli@univpm.it

Gianluca Goffi Università Politecnica delle Marche

Piazzale Martelli, 8, 60100 Ancona, Italy Ph: +39-071-2207057 - g.goffi@univpm.it

Abstract This paper extends the Richie, Crouch (2000) model on destination competitiveness by introducing a set of sustainability indicators and testing their role in explaining the competitiveness of a tourism destination. The model is tested on a unique dataset of small Italian “Destinations of Excellence”, i.e., outstanding tourist destinations recognized by prestigious national and international awards. Both a principal component analysis and a regression analysis are applied to test the empirical validity of the model. Empirical results show that factors directly referring to sustainability have a positive impact on all the competitiveness indicators used as dependent variables. Furthermore, the impact of sustainability variables is larger in value than other variables, thus confirming the role of sustainability as a crucial determinant of the competitiveness of a tourist destination. Keywords: sustainability; tourism; destination competitiveness; Italy.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1

DOES SUSTAINABILITY ENHANCE TOURISM DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS ?

EVIDENCE FROM THE I TALIAN “D ESTINATIONS OF EXCELLENCE ”

Abstract

This paper extends the Richie, Crouch (2000) model on destination competitiveness by introducing

a set of sustainability indicators and testing their role in explaining the competitiveness of a tourism

destination. The model is tested on a unique dataset of small Italian “Destinations of Excellence”,

i.e., outstanding tourist destinations recognized by prestigious national and international awards.

Both a principal component analysis and a regression analysis are applied to test the empirical

validity of the model. Empirical results show that factors directly referring to sustainability have a

positive impact on all the competitiveness indicators used as dependent variables. Furthermore, the

impact of sustainability variables is larger in value than other variables, thus confirming the role of

sustainability as a crucial determinant of the competitiveness of a tourist destination.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the fastest-growing industries in many countries around the world, and the main

source of foreign income for a significant number of developing countries. Therefore, the study of

tourism destination competitiveness (TDC) has attracted the attention of policy makers, public and

private organizations, and tourism researchers (Pearce, 1997; Crouch, Ritchie, 1999; Kozak,

Rimmington, 1999; Buhalis, 2000; Hassan, 2000; Dwyer, Kim, 2003; Enright, Newton, 2004).

After the milestone study by Ritchie, Crouch (2000, 2003), a number of theoretical models have

been developed to explain destination competitiveness (De Keyser, Vanhove, 1994; Hassan, 2000;

Heath, 2002; Dwyer, Kim, 2003), as well as to analyze the competitive positions of tourism

destinations (Sirše, Mihalič, 1999; Dwyer et al.2003; Enright, Newton, 2004; Gomezelj, Mihalič,

2008). Many authors have highlighted the relationship between sustainability and the

competitiveness of a tourism destination and suggested, with different emphases, that sustainability

can improve competitiveness (among others, Ritchie, Crouch, 2003; Hassan, 2000).

However, the large debate on the role of sustainable development has partly overlooked the call for

a deeper empirical test, and there is still no clear empirical evidence of sustainability’s role in

explaining the competitiveness of a destination. The empirical models developed in the TDC

literature (e.g., De Keyser, Vanhove, 1994; Sirše, Mihalič, 1999; Dwyer et al. 2003; Enright,

Newton, 2004; Gomezelj, Mihalič, 2008) provide very useful insights into destination

competitiveness, but partly neglect the role of sustainability factors.

This study aims at contributing to this literature by integrating a basic model of TDC (Richie and

Crouch, 2000) with features related to sustainability. To test the relationship between factors of

sustainability and TDC, we operationalize the conceptual approach by analyzing a number of

indicators we have found to be important in defining sustainability. The study also has the potential

to offer a more comprehensive assessment of the factors that influence TDC. We follow the Dwyer

et al. (2003) approach in identifying a list of indicators derived from previous empirical models of

TDC and from the literature in sustainable tourism and tourism planning and management.

Furthermore, little empirical work has focused on small tourism destinations, and practically no

research on TDC has been applied to small destinations such as villages or small towns. The

existing literature has mostly dealt with countries or large geographical areas, whereas the issue of

TDC has been assessed by considering the prevalent role of large tourist destinations. However,

there are a number of countries where a significant part of the tourist competiveness actually relies

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3

on small places because of the highly fragmented cultural heritage, or the inherent nature of the

tourist sites. Italy is a paradigmatic example of this pattern: the four major destination cities (Rome,

Milan, Florence, and Venice) account only for a part of the tourism flows (24.7% in terms of total

international bed nights), whereas a great number of minor destinations constitute the largest

remaining part. Surprisingly, the empirical literature neglects the role of these small centers almost

entirely: these destinations need attention not only because they account for a sizable share of the

total arrivals, but also because they represent a tourism model that is common to many other

tourism countries. Therefore, our result could be of interest for a larger audience.

We selected small Italian “destinations of excellence” as those that have been awarded important

international (“Blue Flag”) and national certifications (“Orange Flag,” “Most Beautiful Villages in

Italy,” “Blue Sail”). To test the role played by sustainability factors on the competitiveness of a

tourist destination, we studied the relationship between TDC, measured by four dependent variables

(environmental impacts, socio-cultural impacts, economic impacts and tourists’ satisfaction), and

some explanatory variables that can be identified in terms of sustainability. To reduce the large set

of independent variables to a smaller set, we performed a principal component analysis (PCA), as in

Dwyer et al. (2004), and used these results in the subsequent OLS estimates of the model. As

opposed to previous indicators of TDC such as arrivals, bed-nights, revenues, or market share, the

TDC measures we use in the paper acknowledge the view of Müller (1994), Hunter (1995), Buhalis

(2000), Ritchie and Crouch (2000), and others who recognize that a competitive destination pursues

and establishes the right balance on the following different objectives: optimum satisfaction of

guest requirement, subjective well-being of the residents (economic health), unspoiled nature, and

healthy culture.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 sets the theoretical framework. Section 3 gives details

about the empirical analysis (variables, case study, data and methodology). Section 4 provides a

discussion of the main findings. Conclusions are drawn in the last section of the paper.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4

2. Sustainability and competitiveness in small tourism destinations

Many studies and models have identified destination competitiveness by using the lens of high

visitor numbers and market share as contributing factors to a competitive destination. This view has

a major limitation in that it ignores the sustainable perspective of not overloading the carrying

capacity of a destination, or preserving its environmental integrity (Croes, 2010). Many authors

seem to agree that the competitive destination is the one that preserves natural and cultural

resources and increases long-term well-being for its residents by delivering an experience that is

more satisfying compared to similar destinations (Hassan, 2000; Heath, 2003; Ritchie, Crouch,

2003; Bahar, Kozak, 2007).

The concept of sustainability was introduced to tourism from the notion of sustainable development,

following the publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development Report,

known as the Bruntland Report (WCED, 1987). Even though after a quarter-century the world is an

enormously different place (Sneddon, Howarth, Norgaard, 2006), and the Report has been criticized

for its central approach (Adams, 1990) and the lack of attention given to power relations among

local-to-global actors (Lélé, 1991), it represented an important starting point for the formulation of

sustainable policies. In Sharpley’s view (2000), sustainable tourism development does not appear to

be entirely consistent with the developmental aspects of sustainable development, but has a larger

inward and product-centered perspective.

Tourism researchers have been trying to define sustainable tourism development (STD) for many

years. Despite the fact that it is widely accepted that STD is a long-term goal (WTO, 1992), or a

concept that is constantly evolving (Inskeep, 1991) and intrinsically dynamic (Liu 2003), there is no

standard definition for “sustainable tourism destinations” (Tepelus, Cordoba, 2005). Lee (2001, p.

314) observes that, “Since destinations are unique, so are sustainable development issues in these

destinations.”

However, there is an emerging consensus that STD aims to minimize environmentally negative

impacts, preserve cultural heritage, while at the same time provide learning opportunities, including

positive benefits for the local economy and contributing to the enhancement of local community

structures (Weaver, 2005).

Practical evidence shows that STD can not only stop further deterioration, but it can also contribute

towards the appreciation of the destination (Aguiló et al. 2005). Various mass tourism destinations

are trying to move toward a more sustainable approach for the tourism development model (Fortuny

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5

et al. 2008; Rodríguez, 2008). Mass tourism was initially considered incompatible with the notion

of sustainability (Krippendorf, 1987; Butler, 1991; Valentine, 1993), as they were seen as polar

opposites by Pearce (1992). This idea was followed by the position of the “movement,” resulting in

the demand to change mass tourism into more sustainable forms (Cohen, 1987; Butler, 1990), and

finally to the idea of “convergence” between the two types (Inskeep, 1991). Inskeep (1991), Hunter,

Green (1995), Clarke (1997), Swarbrooke (1999), Budeanu (2005), Tepelus (2005) highlight that all

types of tourism can aim to be sustainable. Budeanu (2005, p. 90) asserts that, “Sustainable tourism

cannot be achieved if mass tourism practices are not adjusted to integrate sustainability.”

Hence, economic benefits for locals and the minimization of environmental and social

repercussions could be complementary aims in every kind of destination: the key factor could be

managing and controlling the tourism activity. That is the main reason why we aim to demonstrate

that a more sustainable tourism policy and destination management could have a positive impact on

destination competitiveness.

Furthermore, two other aspects of sustainability need to be considered. Firstly, Liu (2003) and

Kastenholz (2004) observe that sustainable tourism cannot be achieved without proper management

of tourism demand. Notwithstanding, demand issues have often been neglected in the sustainable

tourism debate. This may be due to the fact that the concept of sustainability was simply transposed

from the broader concept of sustainable development, where the nature of demand is considered as

a given condition. This is not the case for tourism - which is both supply and demand driven –

requiring consideration of the demand factor in the explanation of TDC (Dwyer, 2003), and also in

the case of small tourist destination competitiveness.

Secondly, many authors agree that the competitive destination is the one that increases well-being

for its residents in the long term (Crouch, Ritchie, 1999; Bahar, Kozak, 2007; Dwyer, Kim, 2003;

Heath, 2003). In this sense, Bramwell et al. (1996) observed that “locals” need to be empowered in

order to move towards sustainable tourism development: if tourism is an income-generating sector

for local communities, and it can have a multiplier effect, then the host population has to feel

empowered, fully participating in the development process, which could be even easier in a small

community.

Based on the previous analysis, sustainability is initially regarded here in the sense of sustainable

tourism policy and management, but also in the senses of both empowerment of locals and

responsible tourist demand. Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis:

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6

Hyp.1: In small-scale tourism destinations, there is a positive relationship between sustainability

and tourism destination competitiveness (TDC).

3. Empirical analysis

3.1 The model

Many models have been developed to explain destination competitiveness. Among the theoretical

approaches, the model developed by Crouch, Ritchie (1999) and further refined (Ritchie, Crouch,

2000, 2003) is the best-known conceptual model of TDC. The model draws on a series of elements

and distinguishes 36 attributes that play a decisive role in the TDC, which are then classified into 5

key factors. Dwyer, Kim (2003) translate the model of Ritchie, Crouch (2000) into specific

indicators, identifying new key determinants as both demand conditions and situational conditions

contribute to determine destination competitiveness. Our model extends the Richie, Crouch model

(2000) and identifies seven key determinants of destination competitiveness that we use as a

benchmark for our PC analysis. There are two primary resources that transfer the value directly to

the tourist: 1. core resources and key attractors, and 2. tourism services. There are four resources

that support their performances: 3. general infrastructures; 4. conditioning and supporting factors; 5.

destination policy, planning, and development; and 6. destination management; – Finally, there is a

seventh determinant: the demand factor. This separation between primary and supporting resources

is based on the Flagestad, Hope (2001) configuration, which takes as a reference Porter’s (1985)

value chain model and Stabell, Fjelstad (1996, 1998) studies. 1

The set of indicators that are considered in the analysis of the competitiveness of a tourism

destination are reported in the Appendix in Table A1, Column 2, under the headings “original

model determinants.” The indicators have been derived from major empirical models of destination

competitiveness (Sirše, Mihalič, 1999; Dwyer, et al. 2003; Enright, Newton, 2004; Gomezelj,

Mihalič, 2008), and extended utilizing insights from sustainable tourism literature and other

conceptual models of destination competitiveness. We selected the indicators according to their

political relevance as suggested by Miller (2001); furthermore, they are tailored to fit the group of

1 Richie, Crouch (2000) lump together two subcomponents under the label “supporting factors and resources”: “hospitality” and

“ infrastructure.” In this model, they are regarded as separate determinants from the “conditioning and supporting factors,” as many authors (Pearce, 1981; Murphy, 1985; Inskeep, 1991; Gunn, Var, 2002) underscore the importance of these components, regarding them as separate main elements. Moreover, as in Dwyer and Kim (2003), the model contains a separate box for the “demand” factor.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7

small Italian tourism destinations, as there is no universal set of competitiveness indicators that are

always applicable to all destinations (Enright, Newton, 2004; Gomezelj, Mihalič, 2008).

From a sustainability perspective, the indicators included in previous empirical models of

destination competitiveness do not appear to be entirely relevant. This is particularly evident for the

set of indicators in the Sirše, Mihalič’s and Enright, Newton’s models, which do not seem to place

enough emphasis on the social, cultural, and economic dimensions of sustainability. For this reason,

almost half of the proposed indicators refer directly to sustainability issues (see Column 3 of Table

A1 in the Appendix).

3.2 Measuring competitiveness: the dependent variable

Various approaches explaining TDC can be distinguished in the literature. Indicators of destination

competitiveness can be classified as either objective or subjective. Concerning the first category,

studies such as Gooroochurn, Sugiyarto (2005), Cracolici, Nijkamp (2006), Zhang, Jensen (2007),

Mazanec et al. (2007), Cracolici, Cuffaro, Nijkamp (2008), Cracolici, Nijkamp, Rietveld (2008),

Craigwell, Worrel (2008), Croes (2010), Zhang et al. (2011), Pestana et al. (2011) make use of

published secondary data in order to explain TDC. Quantitative data have often been used because

it is perceived as more precise and accurate.

However, Crouch (2010) points out that using quantitative data could present some risks. First, the

volume of indicators could be massive and discouraging. Second, finding available data for each

dimension of destination competitiveness would be very problematic. Third, many of the feature

measures are multidimensional, abstract, or inaccurate. Fourth, indicators are not always

quantifiable and may be necessarily subjective.

Concerning the second category—qualitative data—two approaches are found in tourism literature.

In the first approach, competitiveness is explained using survey data of tourists’ opinions and

perceptions (Haahti, Yavas, 1983; Haahti, 1986; Javalgi et al. 1992; Driscoll et al. 1994; Kozac,

Rimmington, 1998, 1999; Botha, Crompton, Kim, 1999; Kozak, 2002; Bahar, Kozac, 2007;

Cracolici, Nijkamp, 2008; Mechida et al. 2010). A second approach is based on the empirical

evaluation of several subjective indicators of tourism competitiveness, surveyed on key tourism

stakeholders (Sirše, Mihalič, 1999; Faulkner et al. 1999; Dwyer et al. 2003; Dwyer et al. 2004; Kim,

Dwyer, 2003; Enright, Newton, 2004, 2005; Gomezelj, 2006; Kaynak, Marandu, 2007; Gomezelj,

Mihalič, 2008; Lee, King, 2009; Lee, Chen, 2010; Bornhorst, Ritchie, Sheehan, 2010; Crouch,

2010; Dwyer et al. 2012). Enright, Newton (2004) and Gomezelj, Mihalič (2008) assert that the

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8

understanding of people who have significant knowledge of what makes a tourism destination

competitive can supply helpful information for analyses such as this. In this paper, we follow this

methodological approach.

As for the measure of competitiveness, TDC has been initially measured by indicators such as

arrivals, bed-nights, revenues, or market share, as competitiveness was defined as, “the ability of a

destination to maintain its market position and share and/or to improve upon them through time”

(d’Harteserre, 2000, p. 23). However, Ritchie, Crouch (2000, p. 5) claim that, “Competitiveness is

illusory without sustainability. To be competitive, a destination’s tourism development must be

sustainable, not just economically and ecologically, but socially, culturally, and politically as well.”

They define TDC as, “The ability to increase tourism expenditure, to increasingly attract visitors

while providing them with satisfying, memorable experiences, and to do so in a profitable way,

while enhancing the well-being of destination residents and preserving the natural capital of the

destination for future generations” (Ritchie, Crouch, 2003, p. 2). This is in line with Buhalis (2000),

who identifies four main objectives for a competitive destination: enhance the long-term prosperity

of local people; maximize visitors’ satisfaction; maximize profitability of local businesses and

generate multiplier effects; and, optimize tourism impacts. This also acknowledges the view of

Müller (1994), Hunter (1995) and others who recognize that a competitive destination pursues and

establishes the right balance on the following different objectives: optimum satisfaction of guest

requirement, subjective well-being of the residents, economic health, unspoilt nature, and healthy

culture.

We follow this approach in measuring TDC of small-tourism Italian destinations as we think that

these views better capture the essence of sustainability of the tourist destinations. This is why we

measure TDC using the following indicators:

- tourism has resulted in positive environmental impacts for the destination;

- tourism has resulted in positive socio-cultural impacts for the local community;

- tourism has resulted in positive economic impacts for the local community;

- tourists were satisfied with their overall travel experience in the destination.

Details on the procedure we followed to define the dependent variable(s) are provided in Section

3.5 below.

3.3 The case study

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9

Despite its relevance in the global tourism industry, Italy appeared very rarely as a case study in

international tourism literature (Formica, Uysal, 1996; Mazzocchi, Montini, 2001). Italy is one of

the world’s leading tourism destinations, with more UNESCO World Heritage Sites (47) than any

other country on the planet. In terms of performance, Italy ranks fifth worldwide by the number of

international tourist arrivals and also fifth by the amount of international tourism receipts

(UNWTO, 2012). Furthermore, Italy ranks second worldwide for accommodation capacity, after the

United States.

It was only recently that a few research studies started to concentrate on Italian destinations

(Cracolici, Nijkamp, 2008; Cracolici et al. 2008a; Guizzardi Mazzocchi, 2009; Massidda, Etzo,

2012); however, almost all of these studies have focused on a regional or country level, leaving the

town level of the analysis totally unexplored. The international literature shows very little empirical

work done on small tourism destinations.s, and TDC research applied to small towns or villages is

almost non-existent. The majority of studies look at competitiveness for a single country or a group

of countries (e.g., Ahmed, Khron, 1990; Bahar, Kozak, 2007; Das Di Rienzo, 2008, 2010; Dwyer et

al. 2003; Dwyer et al. 2004; Dwyer et al. 2012; Gooroochum, Sugiyarto, 2005; Haahti, 1986;

Haahti, Yavas, 1983; Kaynak, Marandu, 2006; Kim, Dwyer, 2003; Kozak, Rimmington, 1999; Lee,

Chen, 2010; Mazanec et al. 2007; Miller et al., 2008; Gomezelj, 2006; Gomezelj, Mihalic, 2008;

Sirse, Mihalic, 1999; Zhang, Jensen, 2007). Other empirical studies concentrate on islands (Croes,

2010; Mechinda et al., 2010), big cities (Enright, Newton, 2004, 2005, Minghetti, Montaguti, 2010),

particular types of destinations (Botha et al., 1999; d’Hautserre, 2000; Lee, King, 2009), famous

resort destinations (Kozak, 2002), and regions/provinces (Faulkner et al.,1999; Cracolici, Nijkamp,

2008; Zhang et al., 2011; Pestana et al., 2011).

Italy has thousands of touristic sites, hundreds of medieval villages and historic churches, and a

great number of museums and archaeological sites, which are spread all over the country. The small

destinations—located on the mainland and at the seaside—perform quite well and have high-growth

potential. They are rich in history and culture, with a well-developed tourism industry. However,

they are also dependent on poor management and marketing support, with a lack of policy and

regulation, infrastructures, and often low quality accommodation facilities (WEF, 2013; OECD,

2011).

This is why we have created a unique dataset of Italian small “destinations of excellence”—both

from the mainland and from the coast—to study the role of sustainability on supporting tourist

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10

competitiveness in small tourist destinations. Our choice of small destinations aims at evaluating a

typically neglected part of a country’s tourist competitiveness, i.e., the role of small destinations of

excellence in the tourist industry. Even though Italy is known worldwide for its major cultural

destinations and historical cities (e.g., Rome, Florence, Venice, Milan), a large share of total

tourism flows is actually directed towards “minor” destinations, which account for a great part of

the country’s tourism structure (67.7% of international tourist arrivals and 75.3% of international

bed nights). 2

3.4 Data

The data were collected by a web survey. The web survey required respondents to rate their own

tourism destination’s competitiveness on a 5-point Likert scale, on each one of the TDC indicators.

Following Dwyer et al. (2003), respondents were asked to rate their destination against a reference

group of destinations. Dwyer et al. (2003, p. 63) state, “It would be meaningless to ask respondents

to give absolute ratings for any destination on any given attribute of competitiveness.” This is

motivated by the fact that a given location is not competitive in a vacuum, but only when viewed

against competing destinations (Kozac, Rimmington, 1999, Enright et. al., 1997; Enright, Newton,

2005; Bahar, Kozac, 2007; Gomezelj, Mihalič, 2008). As a consequence, the web survey began by

asking respondents to identify the main competitive locations (maximum 5). The questionnaire was

pre-tested on 5 hotel managers, 5 tourism researchers, and 5 heads of public tourism offices. On the

basis of the pre-test, some indicators were simplified and/or rewritten. Then, the final draft of the

model was screened by a panel of both academics and practitioners.

For each destination, two stakeholders were chosen: (one from the public sector and one from the

private sector): the head of the tourism office and the head of the local hotel association. In small

tourism destinations, in the absence of a hotel association, a hotel manager was contacted. They

were first contacted by phone to explain the objective of the study, and afterwards a link to the web-

based survey was sent to them.

2 Among the group of largest Italian destinations, the number of arrivals in 2009 ranged from about 2.5 mln for Florence

to more than 8 mln for Rome. Conversely, in our sample the average number of arrivals in 2009 ranged from 11,960 for the “Most Beautiful Villages” to 121,019 for the “Blue Flags,”—evidence that describes a totally different model of tourism.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11

The sample selection was done by including the Italian “destinations of excellence;” specifically,

small tourism destinations that have been awarded important international and national

certifications. These destinations are clustered in four groups:

• “Blue Flag” (117 municipalities in the sample), awarded by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE);

• “Blue Sail” (295 municipalities), awarded by Legambiente;

• “Orange Flag” (181 municipalities), awarded by the Italian Touring Club;

• “The Most Beautiful Villages in Italy” (199 municipalities), awarded by the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI).

“Blue Flag” is an internationally recognized voluntary eco-label run by the Foundation for

Environmental Education, which is awarded to beaches and marinas that satisfy environmental

quality standards and management (3,850 beaches awarded worldwide). In Italy, a similar award

named the “Blue Sail” was introduced by Legambiente (the main environmental organization in the

country) to recognize the most beautiful maritime locations. The “Orange Flag” and admission to

"The Most Beautiful Villages in Italy" certification are awarded to municipalities on the mainland

with a population under 15,000 people. They require satisfying a number of prerequisites, both

structural (such as the quality of public and private building heritage), and general such as regarding

the quality of life in the village in terms of activities and services provided for the people. It is

important to note that all these destinations are characterized by the supply of high-quality tourism

services based on factors of excellence that are also related to sustainability issues. In that sense, the

destinations sampled are mostly representative of those destinations that have already decided to

compete through quality services and sustainability, as opposed to price, mass marketing, or

distribution channels.

A total of 550 usable surveys were received from 370 municipalities. A reliability analysis

(Cronbach’s alpha) was performed to test the trustworthiness and internal consistency of the survey

instrument. The scale is internally reliable (alpha = 0.89) and meets the minimum standard

suggested by Nunnally (1978) and Pallant (2001).

The number of respondents for each type of municipality is shown in the first row in Table 1.

Table 1 here

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12

The sum of the number of respondents in the first row is greater than the total number of

respondents (550) because some municipalities were awarded 2-3 concurrent certifications3. The

number of tourist arrivals has grown from 2004 to 2009 for each category, except for “Beautiful

Villages.”

Coastal municipalities (awarded with “Blue Flags” and “Blue Sails”) had a higher mean number of

tourist arrivals in 2009: the mean is 121,000 tourists for the “Blue Flags” and 76,000 for the “Blue

Sails,” while in the inland destinations (“Orange Flags” and “Beautiful Villages”) the average is

fewer than 20,000 tourists. They also have a significantly higher number of bed places.

For each group, the mean number of national and international tourist arrivals is much higher than

the median number, as there are some municipalities with anomalies or extreme values (unusually

high values of visitors). The average length of stay is greater in the coastal destinations

(approximately 6 days) as compared to inland destinations (less than 4 days).

International tourist arrivals make up about 35 percent of the total number of visitors in coastal

municipalities, compared to 42% in the “Orange Flags” and 29% in the “Beautiful Villages”. A

major problem is that these destinations have not been able to attract a significantly higher number

of international tourists who may have great interest in small inland destinations that are culturally

and historically rich; from 2004 to 2009 the percentage of international tourists decreased for all

groups except the “Beautiful Villages” (where there were no significant changes). The average

number of international tourist arrivals even went down slightly from 2004 to 2009 in the

“Beautiful Villages” and “Blue Sails.”

3.5 Methodology

To reduce the large set of variables to a smaller set, a principal component analysis (PCA) was

performed using STATA version 11.0 on the responses to the 64 questionnaire items measuring

destination competitiveness. The PCA is a useful technique for multivariate statistics, and it was

also used in the TDC research (Dwyer et al., 2004; Cracolici, Nijkamp, 2008). We have followed

the Dwyer et al. (2004) approach.

3 Specifically, 54 municipalities have been awarded both “Blue Flag” and “Blue Sails;” 20 municipalities with both “Orange Flag” and “Beautiful Village.. In some cases, the municipalities have an inland historic center but the territory extends to the sea: 2 municipalities have been awarded “Blue Flag” and “Beautiful Village;; 10 municipalities received “Blue Sail” and “Beautiful Village;” and 4 municipalities received “Blue Flag,” “Blue Sail,” and “Beautiful Village”.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13

Principal Component Analysis produced 13 components, which explain 69.6% of the total variance.

The list of items included in each component is reported in Table A1 in the Appendix. Dwyer et al.

(2004) obtained similar results after applying a PCA to a similar set of indicators. Two statistics are

used to test if the factor analysis is appropriate for this study (Hair et. al 1995). First, the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic is calculated as .78 which is statistically significant. Second, Barlett’s

test of sphericity is conducted, yielding a significant Chi-Square value in order to test the

significance of the correlation matrix (χ = 91.3, Sig. < .001). Findings of both tests suggested that

the factor analysis was appropriate for this study. Finally, Cronbach’s Alpha was also computed for

the items that formed each component. All the coefficients indicate that these multiple measures

are reliable for measuring each construct. To study whether, and to what extent, explanatory

variables identifying the components of destination competitiveness from the PCA affect TDC

indicators, we estimate the following model by ordinary least square (OLS):

Where the dependent variable Y, which measures competitiveness, is given by the four indicators

listed below:

i) environmental impacts (“tourism has resulted in positive environmental impacts”);

ii) socio-cultural impacts (“tourism has resulted in positive socio-cultural impacts”);

iii) economic impacts (“tourism has resulted in positive economic impacts”);

iv) tourists’ satisfaction (“tourists were satisfied with their overall travel experience”).

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with these four items via 5-point Likert-type

scales, ranging from 1 being “Strongly Disagree” to 5 being “Strongly Agree”. The answers to these

questions were used as dependent variables in the regression model. We used the population,

elevation, area size, zone type, municipality type (as classified by Istat, The Italian National

Institute for Statistics) and the location (coastal or inland) as controls in the estimates. Data on the

population, elevation, area, municipality type, and type of zone type were obtained from Istat. The

model has a dependent variable measured as average values for the period 2009-2011, and the

vectors of explanatory factors measured as average values for the period 2004-2009.

4. Results

4.1 Results of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

tiiii ControlsComponentsY ,2092004,10092011, υααα +++= −−

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14

The results of the PCA as shown in Table 1 display a coherent structure of the interrelations among

the competitiveness indicators. The amount of variance explained by each component is specified in

Column 1. Column 2 shows which component refers directly to sustainability.

Table 2 Here

A total of 13 components can be extracted from the variables defined above, which explain 69.6%

of the total variance. The component composed of “visitor satisfaction management” and “level of

repeat visitors” is dropped from consideration, as factors defined by only two observed variables are

considered to be conceptually weak factors and not desirable (Mulaik, 2010). As is common in

PCA, the first component comprises a large number of variables and is fairly general. The list of

indicators included in the components are shown in the Appendix in Table A1. The results produced

by the PCA are briefly discussed below.

Component 1: Sustainable Tourism Policy and Destination Management (35.9%). As is frequently

encountered in PCA, the first component consists of many variables→17 in this case, accounting

for a high percentage of the variance (35.9%). This mixed grouping encompasses the notion of

sustainable tourism policy and destination management. It is interesting to note that respondents do

not clearly perceive a distinction between destination management and tourism policy, but they

distinguish between sustainable attributes of tourism policy/management and attributes linked to

marketing and general issues.

Tourism policy and destination management are related concepts: tourism policy sets a framework

within which a competitive destination can be developed long term, while destination management

has a shorter time horizon. There is extensive literature on tourism planning (Gunn, Var, 2002;

Murphy, 1985; Hall, 2000; Inskeep, 1991) and destination management (Laws, 1995; Ritchie,

Crouch, 2003; Weaver, Lawton, 2006; Buhalis, Costa, 2006; Wang, Pizam, 2011).

The great majority of the basic indicators here refer directly to sustainability issues, such as the

integrated approach to tourism planning, the collaboration and the community participatory process,

the stewardship of the natural environment, the monitoring and minimizing of the negative tourism

impacts, and the public commitment to tourism and to tourism education.

Many authors recognize these elements as closely related to sustainability (Godfrey, 1998; Ritchie,

Crouch, 2003) and the key role a coordinated approach plays to the planning and management of a

sustainable destination. Murphy (1995), Godfrey (1998), Bramwell et Al. (1996), Bramwell,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15

Sharman (1999) underscored the need for a community participatory process in sustainable tourism

planning. Many authors (among others, Mieczkowski, 1995; Mihalič, 2000; Hassan, 2000),

organizations, and international conferences (as an example, the Lanzarote Charter, from the World

Conference on Sustainable Tourism, 1995; Agenda 21 from WTTC, WTO, Earth Council, 1995)

recognize that STD must be ecologically sustainable in the long term.

This is a problem particularly relevant to the Italian destinations, as stressed by the WEF’s Travel &

Tourism Competitiveness Report ranking national tourism competitiveness through a global index

and a number of sub-indexes (WEF, 2013). Although various limitations have been identified by

Crouch (2007) in the reliability of these indexes, it can provide a starting point from which to

identify the main problems and weaknesses of the Italian tourism system. These include policy rules

and regulations, where Italy ranks 100th out of 140 countries, and an insufficient focus on

developing the sector in an environmentally sustainable way: Italy ranks 119th in the sustainability

of tourism industry development. An OECD study on Italian tourism systems emphasized the need

for a long-term, integrated, coherent and efficient national tourism strategy in Italy, in partnership

with all private- and public-sector stakeholders (OECD, 2011a).

Another OECD Study on sustainable tourism and local development at the regional level in Italy

underscores the need for a better-developed evaluation framework on tourism and local

development policy, and a more focused training and educational framework on the tourism sector

(OECD, 2011b). In the context of this general lack of coordinated planning and scant attention

devoted to issues related to sustainability, it is even more difficult for small destinations to pursue

integrated policies aimed at sustainability.

Component 2: General Infrastructures (5.06%). The second component comprises 8 items, 6 of

which lend themselves to the infrastructure label (road system and transportation, communication

system, and medical care facilities), a critical component of successful tourism development (Kaul,

1985; Prideaux, 2000; Khadaroo, Seetanah, 2007).

Compared to some of the main tourism competitors in Europe, Italy is lagging behind in terms of

recent infrastructure development (OECD, 2011a). WEF ranks its quality of air transport

infrastructure 67th and international air transport network 81st out of 140 countries; Italy is ranked

57th in road quality and 110th in ground transportation network (WEF, 2013). Italy has an

abundance of small tourism destinations spread all over the territory, particularly in hilly and

mountainous areas. Due to this geographical dispersion, infrastructures are vitally important for the

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16

development of tourism in small inland locations. It should be noted that tourist visitation generates

additional demands on communication infrastructure and physical infrastructure such as water

supply, sanitation, and waste systems. More broadly, tourist visitation also increases demand for

public services such as health facilities.

Component 3: Events and Activities (3.56%). The third component contains four items, and has

been titled “events and activities.” Events, leisure activities, nightlife, and shopping are often the

primary motivations for visiting a destination (Ritchie, Crouch 2003). This explains the high

academic interest in events management, and the publishing of several books on this subject (Getz,

1997; Shone, Parry, 2001; Van der Wagen, 2002; Yeoman et al., 2003; Raj et al. 2008; Allen et al.

2008; Bowdin et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2010). The assortment of events and activities is of rising

significance due to visitors’ ever-increasing search for the ‘real’ and ‘authentic,’ seeking

experiences that overtake the more inactive tourism of the past (Poon, 1993). Events could extend

the seasonal life especially in tourism destinations with an inbuilt seasonality (Getz, 1989, 1991;

Hall, 1987; Faulkner, 2003), and this is the case with small coastal destinations in Italy.

Small tourism Italian centers abound with historical and cultural events, pageants, festivals, craft

fairs, and culinary festivals year round. Nonetheless, they are not exploited for tourism purposes;

they are usually unknown and inaccessible for tourists (only attended by residents of nearby

villages). They could generate high levels of interest for visitors and several advantages. Small

Italian communities are very rich in handicraft products in the fields of textiles, wood, ceramics,

precious metals, and others. Notwithstanding, many handicraft shops are closing due to the

depopulation of historic centers. Shopping tourism can be seen as a vehicle to revitalize both

traditional urban centers and rural areas (Jansen-Verbeke, 1991).

Component 4: Responsible Tourist Behavior (3.56%). “Tourists’ interest in local heritage,”

“tourists’ respect for local culture,” and “environmental awareness” are the indicators included in

this component. These three characteristics refer to the notion of responsible tourist behavior and

are directly connected with the sustainable tourism concept (Swarbrooke, 1999). Sharpley (1994:

84) gives a description of the responsible tourist as the person who “seeks quality rather than value,

is more adventurous, more flexible, more sensitive to the environment and searches for greater

authenticity than the traditional, mass tourist.” Budeanu (2005) claims that travellers need to be

educated in order to increase their awareness about the environmental and socio-cultural

sensitivities of the destination, and the potential impacts of their consumption. These issues need to

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17

be especially considered in small Italian destinations where interactions between tourists and local

communities can be particularly high, and thus so can the social, cultural, and environmental

impacts of tourism. Tourism can change small local communities, and so tourism policy must be

encouraged to carefully examine the social and environmental implications of tourism development

in such destinations.

Component 5: Local empowerment in the tourism sector (3.28%). This component is represented

by four variables comprising the management capabilities and professional skills of the business

operators, the use of IT, and the presence of local tourism firms. Choy (1995) observes that the

prevalence of hotels, restaurants, and bars in tourism may induce us to think that the tourism

industry is relatively low skilled. The great changes that have happened in tourism have made

organizations more competitive and customers more demanding. Bramwell et al. (1996) state that

all stakeholders need to be empowered in order to move towards sustainable tourism development.

Local empowerment “is an important way of affecting impacts in ways that are benign to

destination communities” (Wall, Mathieson, 2006: 307). The Italian tourism supply is dominated by

family-owned companies (OECD, 2010), especially in small tourism centers like the sample

surveyed for this study; it is for this reason that it is essential to increase the capacity and capability

of people working in the tourism industry. Baum (1995) argues that skill levels and human resource

management play a strategic role in the challenge to improve the quality of the tourism product,

enhancing the market position of tourism destinations.

Component 6: Destination Marketing (2.99%). The three indicators referring to the destination

marketing components are: “effectiveness of destination positioning,” “market segmentation,” and

“awareness of the destination.”

OECD (2001a, p. 109) claims that, “Italian tourism promotion is not sufficiently performance-

oriented” and that, “Regional structures for developing and promoting tourism products are often

too dispersed and they sometimes lack the capacity to operate effectively on foreign markets. (…)”

Evidence indicates that there is a lack of clarity and coordination on promotional activities between

the government, regions, provinces, and municipalities” (OECD, 2011a, p. 17). Italy is ranked 116th

out of 140 countries in terms of marketing effectiveness attracting tourists, by the WEF (WEF,

2013).

One of the main problem with Italian tourism is the fragmentation of promotional activities abroad,

between the twenty Italian regions and a multiplicity of actors; this often leads to a dispersion of

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

18

resources and overlapping roles and responsibilities (Club The European House-Ambrosetti, 2008).

The lack of a clear tourism marketing strategy at the national level has resulted in uncoordinated

strategy in the country’s territories. In this context, it is difficult to implement successful marketing

campaigns in small locations such as those in our sample.

Component 7: Quality of environmental and natural resources (2.73%). “Natural resources” and

“environmental quality” comprise this component. Natural resources can be considered among the

most important resources for a tourism destination (Ritchie, Crouch, 2003; Dwyer, Kim, 2003). The

quality of the environment is related to the attractiveness of the destination. Tourism and the

environment are in a very complex relationship (Butler, 2000). Mihalič (2000) points out that a

well-managed destination environment is not only good for STD but is also the best destination

advertisement. Italy is one of the world’s leading tourism destinations, with outstanding natural

resources. Italy’s natural beauty offers magnificent beaches with 7,458 km of coastline, and 6,701

km of ski runs in the Alps and in the Apennine mountains. Many small inland destinations, and also

hundreds of small seaside destinations where tourism is well-developed but highly seasonal, have

high growth potential in Italy. Formica & Uysal, examining the Italian tourism system in 1996,

observed an important trend towards a ‘high-qualitative learning’ type of tourism with a growing

interest in green, rural, and appealing places. Italy’s small realities are in an excellent position to

benefit from this trend.

The attribute “safety” is also included in this component. A probable explanation is that this

element was interpreted as the absence of natural calamities. This is most likely related to the fact

that security is not a problem in the small destinations surveyed. Conversely, landslides,

earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters occur with increasing frequency in Italy, as an high

percentage of small Italian municipalities was estimated to be at risk of landslides and floods4. This

makes safety a crucial issue for the group of small destinations of excellence.

Component 8: Gastronomy (2.29%). “Gastronomy and typical products” (first determinant) and

“food services quality” (second determinant) are 2 of the 3 variables incorporated in this

component. The third variable, “local supply of goods” (fourth determinant), highlights the

association between authenticity of a tourism destination and local products and producers.

Systematic research on gastronomy and tourism has been neglected until recently. Gastronomy is 4 The recent natural disaster occurred in the touristic town of Senigallia, one of the most known small Italian “destinations of excellence”, witnesses the risk faced by many small tourist destinations in the country. See http://www.neurope.eu/article/italys-senigallia-mourns-victims-flooding .

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

19

one of the most important elements affecting the authenticity of a tourism destination. (Sedmak,

Mihalič, 2008). Hjalager, Richards (2002) explore the role of gastronomy as a source of regional

identity, and also a source of economic development related to tourism. Tourists are increasingly

interested in consuming dishes and food products that are characteristic of the area they are visiting.

Italy is known worldwide for the richness and variety of its gastronomy. Small Italian destinations

have much to offer in this regard. An example of a sustainable and attractive form of tourism that

perfectly fits these realities is wine tourism (Zanni, 2004).

In a study about the importance of destination images held by U.S.-based travel intermediaries, the

most frequent response for Italy was “food, cuisine, pasta, wine,” followed by “historic, ancient

ruins, archeology, old” (Baloglu, Mangaloglu, 2001). Gastronomy is recognized worldwide as an

important part of the local Italian culture that the tourist can experience. This can be a crucial

element in the promotion of tourism in small places such as those surveyed, as well as a means of

local economic development.

Component 9: Historical and Artistic Features (1.93%). This component is associated with 3

variables: “historical and archaeological sites,” “artistic and architectural features,” and “cultural

attractors.” “Culture, broadly defined, is a second very powerful dimension of destination

attractiveness” (Ritchie, Crouch, 2003:115). In the last two decades, many texts were published

about this subject of increasing interest (Richards, 1996, 2007; Richards, Munsters, 2010; Boniface,

1995; Walle, 1998; McKercher, du Cros, 2002; Sigala, Leslie, 2005; Smith, 2003, 2009; Smith,

Robinson, 2006). A destination’s cultural and heritage attractors provide a significant force for the

potential visitor (Ritchie, Zins, 1978; Cohen, 1988; Prentice, 1993; Murphy et al. 2000). A high

proportion of international travellers are now considered cultural tourists (Richards, 1996). This has

led to excessive pressure on Italy’s vulnerable heritage cities, menacing not only the vitality of the

local economies, but also the integrity of the heritage and the residents’ quality of life (Van der

Borg, Costa, Gotti, 1996). Italy has more UNESCO World Heritage sites (47) than any other

country. Italy also boasts thousands of touristic historical sites, 4,739 museums, 393 archaeological

sites, hundreds of medieval villages, and historic churches, which are distributed all over the

country (FareAmbiente 2011). This is the reason why small Italian realities with an abundance of

high-quality cultural and natural heritage are in a very strong competitive position.

Component 10: Price-quality relationship (1.88%). This component is composed of three indicators.

The first two relate to the value for money of accommodations and in the entire tourism experience

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

at the destination; the third one is about the destination’s links with the major origin market. Quality

orientation is particularly important in the destinations surveyed, which often focus on niche

tourism. Italian destinations are usually perceived offering a good-quality experience (Baloglu,

Mangaloglu, 2001). A major element of attractiveness for a tourism destination is also the cost of

using tourist facilities and services, compared to the costs at similar destinations (Inskeep, 1991).

The price tourists pay to visit and enjoy a destination experience plays a key role in determining the

destination choice travellers make (Crouch, 1992). This seems to be one of the major problems

faced by Italian tourism: WEF ranks its price competitiveness in travel and tourism industry 134th

out of 140 countries in the world (WEF, 2013).

Component 11: Tourist Accommodations (1.69%). This component includes “quality,” “quantity,”

and “environmental friendliness” of tourist accommodations. Even if a destination possesses a great

quantity of resources and attractors, it requires the support of other elements in order to be adequate

for receiving tourists (Gunn, Var, 2002). Accommodation is probably the most important

component of a good holiday. Hospitality has been defined as “the very essence” of tourism (Page,

2003: 254) and has a very important role in the generation of economic benefits for the community

(Cooper et. al. 1998). According to Go et al. (1994), there is a mutual influence between a

destination’s economic growth and the hotels’ performance.

The Italian hotel market is the second biggest in the world; nevertheless, it appears extremely

fragmented and relatively low quality: 32% of the hotels are one or two stars (Istat, 2011). Chain

penetration is minimal in Italy accounting for just 6% of the room stock (Mintel, 2004). The Italian

tourism supply is dominated by family-owned companies. This occurs even more frequently in

smaller destinations. Italy’s hotel industry has one of the highest proportion of micro (1-9

employees) and small companies (<50 employees) in the EU: 62.3% have fewer than 20 employees,

compared to 54.8% in France, 24.7% in Spain, and 20.4% in the UK (OECD, 2010). There are

advantages to such an industrial structure such as market niche advantages, flexibility, and

personalized services,; however, on the negative side, small family-owned and -managed hotels

often suffer from limited marketing skills, lack of planning, gaps in human resource management,

and financing difficulties (Buhalis, 1994; Buhalis & Main, 1998; Weiermair, 2000). These results

are also confirmed by empirical studies on Italian small destinations that show that most family-

owned hotel businesses have limited marketing skills and are operated with little capital and weak

management (Goffi, 2010).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

21

Component 12: Emphasis on maximizing local economic development (1.65%). This component

refers to three variables concerning the public sector’s commitment to maximizing tourism’s

economic impact on local communities. They are linked to the sustainable concept of raising the

long-term well-being of tourist destinations’ residents (Crouch, Ritchie, 1999; Bahar, Kozak, 2007;

Dwyer, Kim, 2003; Heath, 2003). Hunter (1995), Buhalis (2000), Ritchie, Crouch (2000) identify

the enhancement of long-term prosperity in local communities as one of the main objectives for a

competitive destination. Tourism could sustain the long-term economic development of small,

inland Italian tourism realities becoming an important source of job opportunities and revenues,

especially considering this long period of economic crisis. It is eloquent, in this regard, that one of

the world’s leading international leisure travel groups purchased an entire village in the heart of

Tuscany for revitalization and restoration in a 250-million Euro investment5. This is the first project

of its kind, and reveals the economic potential of the small tourism destinations in Italy.

4.2 Regression results

Table 3 reports estimated results of the relationship between the TDC indicators (environmental,

social, economic impacts, and tourists’ satisfaction) and the components of destination

competitiveness resulting from the PCA.

The results show that the factors directly referring to sustainability (F1: Sustainable Tourism Policy

and Destination Management; F4: Responsible Tourism Behavior; F5: Local Empowerment in

Tourism Industry; F7: Quality of Environmental and Natural Resources; F12: Emphasis on

Maximizing Local Economic Development) have a positive role in all the TDC indicators, and that

their impact is larger in value than other components that are not related to sustainability. This

result strongly supports the relevance of sustainability as a crucial determinant of the

competitiveness of small tourist destinations. The F-tests at the end of Table 3 demonstrate the

improvement in the model’s validity from the inclusion of the set of sustainability factors (the null

is that all the variables added have a zero coefficient). It is evident that the inclusion of

variables/factors related to sustainability not only increases the overall validity of the estimated

relationship, but also permits to identify which is the individual contribution of the single

variable/factor to the competitiveness dependent variables. This evidence supports our hypothesis

that sustainability plays a crucial role in explaining the competitiveness in small tourist destinations. 5 The German tourist brand TUI AG purchased the village of Castelfalfi in order to build a unique resort development comprised of luxury hotels, residential and resort real estate, restaurants, retail boutiques, meeting facilities, golf, a winery, olive oil production, and recreational facilities (http://www.tui-group.com/en/media/press_releases/archiv/2011/20110606_tuscany_castelfalfi).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

22

The first PCA component, “sustainable tourism policy and destination management”, is by far the

variable with the highest impact on the model, regardless of the dependent variable used. This result

supports the hypothesis that a sustainable tourism policy has great relevance in improving the

competitiveness of a small tourism destination. In small Italian destinations, the focus on

developing the sector in a sustainable way (with a more coordinated approach among public sector

units and public and private stakeholders) could lead to a more competitive tourism system.

Other factors that relate directly to sustainability also play a positive role, thus corroborating the

results we got from the first component. In the model with the environmental impacts as dependent

variables, only the emphasis on maximizing local economic development is irrelevant. This was an

expected result, given the weak association of this indicator with the environmental issue. Similarly,

the components named “responsible tourist behavior” and “emphasis on maximizing local

economic development” are irrelevant when the dependent variables are, respectively, the economic

impact and the tourists’ satisfaction.

In all other cases, each of the major indicators show a significant relationship with the dependent

variable, a result that is in line with the hypothesis that sustainability is a crucial determinant of

TDC in small destinations.

As far as factors that not related to sustainability are concerned, results are mixed and in line with

ex-ante expectation in some cases: destination marketing positively affects economic impact and

tourists’ satisfaction; tourist accommodations positively affects almost all the dependent variables

except for the social impacts; general infrastructures only help tourists’ satisfaction and, to a lesser

extent, the environmental impacts; finally, events and activities are mainly good for social and

economic impacts.

Table 3 here

5. Conclusions

The aim of the paper was to analyze the impact of sustainability on tourist destination

competitiveness in small destinations. We extended the Richie, Crouch (2000) model by including a

list of sustainability indicators and we applied the model to a unique dataset of small Italian

“destinations of excellence”, e.g., destinations that have been awarded important international and

national certifications.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

23

To reduce the large set of dependent variables to a smaller set we performed a principal component

analysis (PCA); factor components were used as main independent regressors in the subsequent

regression analysis. The empirical results show: i) a positive relationship between factors related to

sustainability and TDC indicators; and, ii) the impact of the factors that closely refer to

sustainability is larger in value than other components not directly related to sustainability.

This evidence supports the hypothesis that sustainable tourism development is not only good for

preserving the ecologic balance of a tourism destination, but also for improving its competitiveness.

“Sustainable tourism policy and destination management” is by far the variable with the highest

impact in the model. This result is likely to help tourism policy makers and destination managers

adopt competitive strategies based not only on business-related factors, and to make the

sustainability issue a priority in their agenda. The variable “emphasis on maximizing local

economic development” also has a positive role in all the TDC indicators, corroborating the idea

that a competitive and sustainable destination is not only the one that meets the needs of tourists

preserving the natural and cultural local resources, but also increases the residents’ well-being.

Additionally, there is a positive relationship between the responsible tourist behavior and the

enhancement of destination competitiveness. Even if there has been a lack of attention to tourist

demand in the sustainable tourism debate, these findings show that sustainable tourism cannot be

achieved without appropriate management of tourist demand.

The results also revealed the local community’s empowerment on TDC as a positive impact. Local

communities are part of the tourism product, and the findings support the idea that local

empowerment affects impacts in ways that are benign to destination communities and destination

competitiveness. These research findings may help tourism planners and developers to understand

that sustainable tourism development is necessary not only for preserving the ecologic balance of a

tourism destination, but also as a crucial determinant of its competitiveness.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

24

References

Adam, W., 1990. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World, London: Routledge.

Aguiló, E., Alegre, J. Sard, M., 2005. The persistence of the sun and sand tourism model. Tourism Management. 26, 219–231.

Ahmed, Z. U., Krohn, F.B., 1990. Reversing the United States’ Declining Competitiveness in the Marketing of International Tourism: A Perspective on Future Policy. Journal of Travel Research. 29 (2), 23–29.

Allen, J., McDonnell, I., O'Toole, W., Harris, R., 2008. Festival and Special Event Management. Wiley & Sons, Australia.

Bahar O., Kozak, M., 2007. Advancing Destination Competitiveness Research: Comparison between Tourists and Service Providers. Journal of Travel Marketing. 22 (2), 61–71.

Bakkal, I., 1991. Characteristics of West German demand for international tourism in the Northern Mediterranean region. Applied Economics., 23(2), 295–304.

Baruch, Y., Holtom, B. C., 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations. 61(8), 1139–1160.

Boniface, P., 1995. Managing quality cultural tourism. Routledge, London and New York.

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), 572–589.

Botha, C., Crompton, J.L., & Kim, S.S., 1999. Developing a revised competitive position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 341–352.

Bowdin, G., McDonnell, I., Allen, J., O’Toole, W., 2010. Events Management, 3rd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Bramwell, B. Henry, I.; Jackson, G., Prat, A.G., Richards, G., van der Straaten, J. (eds.), 1996. Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Bramwell, B., Sharman, A., 1999. Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research. 26 (2), 392–415.

Budeanu, A., 2005. Impacts and responsibilities for sustainable tourism: A tour operator perspective. Journal for Cleaner Production. 13(2): 89-97.

Buhalis, D. (1994), “Information and Telecommunications Technologies as a strategic tool for small and medium tourism enterprises in the contemporary business environment”. In Seaton, A. (Ed.) Tourism-The State of the Art: The Strathclyde Symposium. Wiley and Sons, London, pp. 25–-275.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25

Buhalis, D., 2000. Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future. Tourism Management. 21, 97–116.

Buhalis, D., and Main, H., 1998. Information Technology in small and medium hospitality enterprises: Strategic analysis and critical factors, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10 (5), 198–202.

Buhalis, D., Cooper, C., 1998. Competition or Cooperation? in E. Laws, B. Faulkner & G. Moscardo, (Eds.), Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism. Routledge, London.

Buhalis, D., Costa, C., 2006. Tourism Management Dynamics: Trends, Management, Tools, Elsevier, Oxford.

Burns, P, 1999. Paradoxes in Planning: Tourism Elitism or Brutalism? Annals of Tourism Research. 26, 329–348.

Butler, R., 1990. Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research. 3. 40–45.

Butler, R., 1991. Tourism, enviroment, and sustainable development. Enviromental Conservation. 18 (3), 201–209.

Butler, R., 1999. Sustainable Tourism: A State-of-the-Art Review. Tourism Geographies. 1, 7–25.

Butler, R., 2000. Tourism and the environment: A geographical perspective. Tourism Geographies. 2(3), 337–58.

Choy, D., 1995. The quality of tourism employment. Tourism Management. 16 (2), 129–137.

Choyakh, H., 2008. A model of tourism demand for Tunisia: inclusion of the tourism investment variable. Tourism Economics. 14(4), 819–838.

Clarke, J., 1997. A framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 5(3), 224–233.

Club The European House-Ambrosetti, 2008. Il Turismo in Italia. Lettera, 19, 06/2008.

Cohen, E., 1987. Alternative tourism: a critique. Tourism Recreation Research. 12 (2), 13–18.

Cohen, E., 1988. Authenticity and commodification in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 15(2), 371-86.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Shepherd, R., Wanhill, S., 1998. Tourism Principles and Practice, second ed. Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., Harlow, Essex.

Cracolici, M.F., Cuffaro, M., Nijkamp, P., 2008. Sustainable tourist development in Italian holiday destinations, International Journal of Services Technology and Management. 10 (1) 39–47.

Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P., 2006. Competition among Tourist Destination. An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Italian Provinces, in Giaoutzi M., Nijkamp P. (eds.), Tourism and Regional Development: New Pathways. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.

Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P., 2008. The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management. 30, 336–344.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26

Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 2008. Assessment of Tourism Competitiveness by Analysing Destination Efficiency. Tourism Economics. 14 (2), 325–342.

Craik, J., 1995. Are There Cultural Limits to Tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 3, 87–98.

Croes, R., 2010. Measuring and Explaining Competitiveness in the Context of Small Island Destinations. Journal of Travel Research. 20(10) 1–12.

Crouch, G.I., 1992. Effect of Income and Price on international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 19 (4), 643–64.

Crouch, G.I., 2010. Destination Competitiveness: An Analysis of Determinant Attributes. Journal of Travel Research. 20 (10) 1–19.

Crouch, G.I., Ritchie, J.R.B., 1999. Tourism, Competitiveness and Societal Prosperity. Journal of Business Research. 44 (3), 137–152.

Crouch, Geoffrey I. (2007). “Measuring Tourism Competitiveness: Research, Theory and the WEF Index,” ANZMAC Annual Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, December 3-5, 2007.

D’Harteserre, A., 2000. Lessons in Managerial Destination Competitiveness in the case of Foxwoods Casino Resort. Tourism Management. 21(1), 23–32.

De Keyser, R., Vanhove, N., 1994. The competitive situation of tourism in the Caribbean area—Methodological approach. Revue de Tourisme. 3, 19–22.

Driscoll, A., Lawson, R., Niven, B., 1994. Measuring tourists’ destination perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research. 21(3), 499–511.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth P., Rao, P., 2000. The Price competitiveness of travel and tourism: a comparison of 19 destinations. Tourism Management. 21, 9–22.

Dwyer, L., Kim, C., 2003. Destination competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators. Current Issues in Tourism. 6(5), 369–413.

Dwyer, L., Livaic, Z., Mellor, R., 2003. Competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 10(1), 60–78.

Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards, D., Kim, C., 2004. Attributes of Destination Competitiveness: A Factor Analysis. Tourism Analysis. 9 (1-2), 91–101.

Enright, M. J., Newton, J., 2004. Tourism Destination Competitiveness: A Quantitative Approach. Tourism Management. 25 (6), 777–788.

Enright, M.J., Newton, J., 2005. Determinants of Tourism Destination Competitiveness in Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and Universality. Journal of Travel Research. 45 (4), 339–350.

FareAmbiente (2011), Rapporto Beni Culturali 2011, Roma.

Faulkner B., 2003. Progressing Tourism Research. Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Faulkner, B., Opperman, M., Fredline, E., 1999. Destination Competitiveness: An Exploratory Examination of South Australia’s Core Attractions, Journal of Vacation Marketing. 5 (2), 125–139.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

27

Fernandez-Morales, A., Mayorga-Toledano, M.C. (2008). Seasonal concentration of the hotel demand in Costa del Sol: a decomposition by nationalities. Tourism Management. 29(5), 940–949.

Flagestad, A., Hope, C. A., 2001. Strategic success in winter sports destinations: a sustainable value creation perspective. Tourism Management. 22, 445–461.

Formica, S., Uysal, M., 1996. The revitalization of Italy as a tourist destination. Tourism Management. 17(5), 323–331.

Fortuny, M., Soler, R., Cánovas, C., Sánchez, A., 2008. Technical approach for a sustainable tourism development. Case study in the Balearic Islands. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16, 860–869.

Garin Munoz, T., 2007. German demand for tourism in Spain. Tourism Management. 28(1), 12–22.

Getz, D., 1989. Special events: Defining the product. Tourism Management. 10 (2), 125-137.

Getz, D., 1991. Festival, Special Events, and Tourism. Virginian Nostrand Reinhold, NY.

Getz, D., 1997. Event Management and Event Tourism. Cognizant, Communication Corporation, New York.

Global Environment Facility, 1998. Valuing the Global Environment: Actions and Investment for a 21st Century. World Bank Group, Washington, DC.

Go, F.M., Pine, R., Yu, R., 1994. Hong Kong: Sustaining competitive advantage in Asia’s hotel industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 35(5), 50–61.

Godfrey, K.B., 1998. Attitudes towards ‘sustainable tourism’ in the UK: a view from local government. Tourism Management. 19 (3), 213–224.

Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B., 2003. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY.

Goffi, G., 2010. Management delle destinazioni turistiche: sfide per territori e imprese. Il caso di Senigallia e delle Valli Misa e Nevola, FrancoAngeli, Milan.

Gomezelj, D.O., Mihalič, T., 2008. Destination Competitiveness - Applying different models, the case of Slovenia. Tourism Management. 29 (6), 294–307.

Gooroochurn, N., Sugiyarto, G., 2005. Competitiveness indicators in the travel and tourism industry. Tourism Economics. 11 (1), 25–43.

Guizzardi A., Mazzocchi M., 2010. Tourism demand for Italy and the business cycle. Tourism Management. 31, 367–377.

Gunn, C., Var, T., 2002. Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases, 4th ed. Taylor & Francis Books, New York.

Haahti, A., Yavas, U., 1983. Tourists’ perceptions of Finland and selected European countries as travel destinations. European Journal of Marketing. 17, 34–42.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

28

Haahti, A.J., 1986. Finland’s competitive position as a destination. Annals of Tourism Research. 13, 11–35.

Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis, 3rd ed. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

Hall, C.M., 1987. The Effects of Hallmark Events on Cities. Journal of Travel Research. 26(2). 44–5.

Hall, C.M., 1992. Hallmark Tourist Events, Impact, Management, Planning. Belhaven Press, London.

Hall, C.M., 2000. Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex.

Hassan, S.S., 2000. Determinants of Market Competitiveness in an Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Industry. Journal of Travel Research. 38 (3), 239–245.

Heath, E., 2002. Towards a Model to Enhance Destination Competitiveness: A Southern African Perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. 10 (2), 124–141.

Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G., 2002. Tourism and Gastronomy. Routledge, London and NY.

Hunter, C., 1995. On the need to reconceptualize sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 3 (3), 155–165.

Hunter, C., Green, H., 1995. Tourism and the environment: a sustainable relationship? Routledge, London and New York.

Inskeep, E., 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. Wiley, New York.

Istat (2011), Capacity of accommodation facilities, National Institute of Statistics, Rome.

Jansen-Verbeke, M., 1991. Leisure shopping: A magic concept for the tourism industry? Tourism Management. 12 (1), 9–14.

Javalgi, R.G., Thomas, E.G., Rao, S.R., 1992. Consumer Behavior in the U.S. Pleasure Travel Marketplace: An Analysis of Senior and Non-senior Travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), 14–19.

Kastenholz, E., 2004. ‘Management of demand’ as a tool in sustainable tourist destination development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 12(5), 388–408.

Kaul, R. (ed.), 1985. Dynamics of Tourism: A Trilogy. Transportation and Marketing (Vol. 3). New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.

Kaynak, E., Marandu, E.E., 2007. Tourism Market Potential Analysis in Botswana: A Delphi Study. Journal of Travel Research. 45, 227–237.

Khadaroo, J., Seetanah, B., 2007. Transport Infrastructure and Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research. 34 (4), 1021–1032.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

29

Kim, C., Dwyer, L., 2003. Destination competitiveness and bilateral tourism flows between Australia and Korea. Journal of Tourism Studies. 14 (2), 55–67.

Kozak, M., 2002. Measuring comparative destination performance: A study in Spain and Turkey. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 13 (3), 83–110.

Kozak, M., Rimmington, M., 1998. Benchmarking: Destination attractiveness and small hospitality business performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 10 (5), 184–188.

Kozak, M., Rimmington, M., 1999. Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: Conceptual considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 18 (3), 273–283

Krippendorf, J., 1987. The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Heinemann, London.

Krippendorf, J., 1987. The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Heinemann, London.

Laws, E., 1995. Tourist Destination Management. Issues, Analysis and Policies. Routledge, London and New York.

Lee C.F., King B., 2009. A Determination of Destination Competitiveness for Taiwan's Hot Springs Tourism Sector Using the Delphi Technique. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 15 (3), 243–257.

Lee, C-F., King, B.E.M., 2009. A Determination of Destination Competitiveness for Taiwan’s Hot Springs Tourism Sector using the Delphi Technique. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 15 (3), 243–257.

Lee, K.F., 2001. Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 9, 313–23.

Lee, Y.-P., Chen, C.-Y., 2010. Examining and Comparing the Competitiveness of Tourism Industry in Cambodia and Taiwan: An Assessment from Professionals. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge. 16 (1), 129–140.

Lélé, S., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development 19, 607–621

Lim, C., 1997. Review of international tourism demand models. Annals of Tourism Research. 24(4), 835–849.

Liu, Z., 2003. Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 11(6), 459–475.

Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., Backman, M., 2005. The entrepreneurship factor in sustainable tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 13, 787–798.

Massidda, C., Etzo, I., 2012. The determinants of Italian domestic tourism: a panel data analysis. Tourism Management. 33, 603–610.

Mazanec, J.A., Wober, K., Zins, A.H., 2007. Tourism destination competitiveness: From definition to explanation? Journal of Travel Research. 46 (1), 86–95.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

30

Mazzocchi, M., Montini, A., 2001. Earthquake effects on tourism in central Italy. Annals of Tourism Research. 28(4), 1031–1046.

McKercher, B., 1993. The unrecognized threat to tourism: Can tourism survive sustainability? Tourism Management. 14 (2), 131–136.

McKercher, B., du Cros, H., 2002. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. Hayworth Hospitality Press, New York.

Mechinda, P., Serirat, S., Popaijit, N., Lertwannawit, A., Anuwichanont, J., 2010. The relative impact of competitiveness factors and destination equity on tourist’s loyalty in Koh Chang, Thailand. International Business & Economics Research Journal. 9 (10), 99–114.

Mieczkowski, Z., 1995. Environmental issues of tourism and recreation. University Press of America, London.

Mihalič, T., 2000. Environmental management of a tourist destination: a factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management. 21(1), 65-78.

Miller, G., 2001. The Development of Indicators for Sustainable Tourism: Results of a Delphi Survey of Tourism Researchers. Tourism Management. 22 (4), 351–362.

Miller, M.M., Henthorne, T.L., George, B.P., 2008. The Competitiveness of the Cuban Tourism Industry in the Twenty-first Century: A Strategic Re-Evaluation. Journal of Travel Research. 46 (3), 268–278.

Minghetti, V., Montaguti, F., 2010. Assessing Istanbul competitiveness: a multidimensional approach. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research. 4 (3), 228–240.

Mintel (2004), European Hotel Chain Expansion, Travel & Tourism Analyst. May 2004, London.

Müller, H., 1994. The thorny path to sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2(3), 131–136.

Mulaik, S.A., 2010. Foundations of Factor Analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Murphy, P., 1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen, New York.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P., Smith, B., 2000. The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism Management. 21 (1), 43–52.

Nunnally, J. C., 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.

OECD, 2010. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2010, OECD Publishing.

OECD, 2011a. OECD Studies on Tourism: Italy, Review of Issues and Policies, OECD Publishing.

OECD, 2011b. Sustainable Tourism and Local Development in Apulia Region, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers, 2011/02.

Page, S.J., 2003. Tourism Management: Managing for Change. Elsevier, Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

31

Pallant, J., 2001. SPSS Survival Manual: a step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS (Version 10). Open University Press, Buckingham.

Pearce, D.G., 1981. Tourist development. Topics in applied geography. Longman, Harlow.

Pearce, D.G., 1992. Alternative tourism: concepts, classifications, and questions. In V.L. Smith and W.R. Eadington (eds), Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press and the International Academy of the Study on Tourism.

Pearce, D.G., 1997. Competitive Destination Analysis in Southeast Asia. Journal of Travel Research. Spring, 16–24.

Pestana, B., Laurent, B., Nicolas, P., Elisabeth, R., Bernardin, S., Assaf, A., 2011. Performance of French destination: Tourism attraction perspectives. Tourism Management. 32, 141–146.

Poon, A., 1993. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage. The Free Press, New York.

Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. The Free Press, New York.

Prentice, R., 1993. Heritage consumers in the leisure market: An application of the Manning-Haas demand hierarchy. Leisure Sciences. 273–290.

Prideaux, B., 2000. The Role of the Transport System in Destination Development. Tourism Management. 21, 53–63.

Raj, R., Walters, P., Rashid, T., 2008. Events Management: An Integrated and Practical Approach. Sage, London.

Ricardo, D., 1821. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, third ed. John Murray London.

Richards, G. (ed), 2007. Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives. The Haworth Press, Inc., New York.

Richards, G. (ed.), 1996. Cultural Tourism in Europe. CABI, Wallingford.

Richards, G., Munsters, W., 2010. Cultural Tourism Research Methods, CABI, Wallingford.

Ritchie, J.R.B., Crouch, G.I., 2000. The competitive destination, a sustainable perspective. Tourism Management. 21(1), 1–7.

Ritchie, J.R.B., Crouch, G.I., 2003. The competitive destination, a sustainable tourism perspective. Cabi Publishing, Cambridge.

Ritchie, J.R.B., Zins, M.,1978. Culture as determinant of attractiveness of a tourism region. Annals of Tourism Research. 5, 252–267.

Robinson, P., Wale, D., Dickson, G., 2010. Events Management. CABI, Wallingford.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

32

Rodríguez, J.R.O., Parra-López, E., Yanes-Estévez, V., 2008. The sustainability of island destinations: Tourism area life cycle and teleological perspectives. The case of Tenerife. Tourism Management. 29, 53–65.

Saarinen, J., 2006. Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research. 33 (4), 1121–1140,

Sedmak, G., Mihalič, T., 2008. Authenticity in mature seaside resorts. Annals of Tourism Research. (35), 1007–1031.

Sharpley, R., 1994. Tourism, tourists and society. ELM Publications, Huntingdon.

Sharpley, R., 2000. Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 8 (1), 1–19.

Shone, A., Parry, B., 2001. Successful Event Management. Continuum, London.

Sigala, M., 2008. A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators on sustainable tourism: the case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16, 1589–1599.

Sigala, M., Leslie D., 2005. International Cultural Tourism: Management, Implications and Cases, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Sirše, J., Mihalič, T., 1999. Slovenian tourism and tourism policy - a case study. Revue de Tourisme. 3, 34–47.

Smith, A., 1776. The Wealth of Nations. Strahan & Campbell, London.

Smith, M., 2003. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies, Routledge, London.

Smith, M., 2009. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. 2. rev. edition. Routledge, London.

Smith, M., Robinson, M. (eds), 2006. Cultural Tourism in a Changing World. Clevedon, U.K.

Sneddon, C., Howarth R.B., and R. B. Norgaard. 2006. Sustainable Development in a Post- Brundtland World. Ecological Economics. 57, 253–268.

Song, H.Y., Witt, S.F., & Jensen, T.C., 2003. Tourism forecasting: accuracy of alternative econometric models. International Journal of Forecasting. 19(1), 123–141.

Stabell, C.B., Fjeldstad, D., 1996. Value configuring for competitive advantage: On chains, shops and networks (discussion paper 1996/9). Sandvika, Norway: Norwegian School of Management.

Stabell, C. ., Fjeldstad, D., 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal. 19(5), 413–437.

Swarbrooke, J., 1999. Sustainable Tourism Management. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Tepelus, C. M., 2005. Aiming for sustainability in the tour operating business. Journal of Cleaner Productin. 13, 99–107.

Tepelus, C.M, Cordoba, R.C., 2005. Recognition schemes in tourism-from ‘eco’ to ‘sustainability’? Journal of Cleaner Production. 13,135–40.

UNWTO, 2012. Tourism Highlights, United Nations World Tourism Organization. 2012 Edition.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

33

Valentine, P.S., 1993. Ecotourism and nature conservation. Tourism Management. 14 (2), 107–115.

Van der Borg, J, Costa, P., Gotti, G., 1996. Tourism in European Heritage Cities, Annals of Tourism Research. 23 (2), 306–321.

Van der Wagen, L., 2002. Event Management: For Tourism, Cultural, Business and Sporting Events. Hospitality Press, Melbourne.

Wall, G., Mathieson, A., 2006. Tourism:Cchange, Impacts, and Opportunities. Pearson. Education Limited, England.

Walle, A., 1998. Cultural Tourism: A Strategic Focus. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Wang, Y., Pizam, A. (Eds.), 2011. Destination Marketing and Management. Theories and Applications, Cabi Publishing, Cambridge.

WCED, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.

Weaver, D.B., 2000. A broad context model of destination development scenarios. Tourism Management. 21, 217–224

Weaver, D., 2005. Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 32, 439–55.

Weaver, D.B., Lawton, L.J., 2006. Tourism Management. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

WEF, 2013. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011, World Economic Forum, 2013, Geneva.

Weiermair, K. (2000), “Know-how and qualification gaps in the tourism industry: the case of alpine tourism in Austria”. The Tourist Review. Vol. 2, No. 45–53.

World Conference on Sustainable Tourism, 1995. Charter for sustainable tourism.,,Lanzarote, Canary Islands, 27–28 April.

Worrell, D., Craigwell, R., 2008. The Competitiveness of Selected Caribbean Tourism Markets. Social and Economic Studies. 57 (1), 72–107.

WTTC, WTO, Earth Council, 1995. Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. WTTC, London.

Yeoman, I., Robertson, M., Ali-Knight, J., Drummond, S., McMahon-Beattie, U. (eds.), 2003. Festival and Events Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Zanni L. (2004). Leading firms and wine clusters. FrancoAngeli, Milano. Baloglu, S., Mangaloglu, M., 2001.Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management. 22, 1–9.

Zhang, H., Gu, C., Gu, L., Zhang, Y, 2011. The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness by Topsis & information entropy. A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management. 32, 443–451.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

34

Zhang, J., Jensen, C., 2007. Comparative Advantage: Explaining Tourism Flows. Annals of Tourism Research. 34 (1), 223–243.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 – Italian “destinations of excellence”. Small tourism destinations that have been awarded important international and national certifications. Descriptive statistics. 2004-2009.

Orange

Flags Beautiful

Villages Blue

Flags Blue Sails

No. of respondents 131 156 106 235

Population 2009 4,680 4,251 17,995 13,686

Area (sq km) 63.86 49.03 60.50 70.26

Elevation (m) 413 410 72 94

Bed places 2004 - Mean no. 953 731 10,187 6,315

Bed places 2009 - Mean no. 1,012 813 10,601 6,515

Arrivals 2004 - Mean no. 13,515 12,366 107,225 72,004

Arrivals 2009 - Mean no. 15,507 11,960 121,019 76,467

Average length of stay 2009 - Mean no. of days 3.65 3.84 6.10 5.52

National arrivals 2004 - Mean no. 7,634 8,853 67,445 45,730

National arrivals 2009 - Mean no. 9,009 8,462 78,006 50,342

National arrivals 2009 - Median no. 3,361 3,788 43,985 22,369

International arrivals 2004 - Mean no. 5,880 3,513 39,780 26,275

International arrivals 2009 - Mean no. 6,498 3,497 43,013 26,124

International arrivals 2009 - Median no. 1,153 675 10,641 6,462 Source: Elaboration on data obtained from Istat.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 - Principal Component Analysis

Component Solution Amount of variance

explained Refers directly to

sustainability

Component 1: Sustainable Tourism Policy and Destination Management 35.94 Sust. Component 2: General Infrastructures 5.06 Component 3: Events and Activities 3.56 Component 4: Responsible Tourist Behaviour 3.56 Sust. Component 5: Local empowerment in the tourism sector 3.28 Sust. Component 6: Destination Marketing 2.99 Component 7: Quality of environmental and natural resources 2.73 Sust. Component 8: Gastronomy 2.29 Component 9: Historical and Artistic Features 1.93 Component 10: Price - Quality relationship 1.88 Component 11: Tourist Accommodations 1.69

Component 12: Emphasis on maximising local economic development 1.65 Sust. Source: Elaboration on survey data.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 - Regression results – Dependent variable: i) Environmental Impact, ii) Social Impact, iii) Economic Impact, iv) Tourist Satisfaction - OLS estimates

Environmental impact

Social impact

Economic impact

Tourist satisfaction

Environmental impact

Social impact

Economic impact

Tourist satisfaction

Factors not directly related to sustainability Component 2 0.120 0.077 0.081 0.133*** 0.089** 0.046 0.054 0.120***

(0.077) (0.074) (0.058) (0.052) (0.036) (0.041) (0.038) (0.039)

Component 3 0.096 0.223*** 0.224*** 0.135*** 0.023 0.165*** 0.212*** 0.104***

(0.078) (0.075) (0.059) (0.052) (0.037) (0.042) (0.038) (0.040)

Component 6 -0.029 0.064 0.300*** 0.258*** -0.051 0.046 0.293*** 0.248***

(0.075) (0.072) (0.056) (0.050) (0.035) (0.040) (0.036) (0.038)

Component 8 0.161** 0.040 0.086 0.026 0.166*** 0.044 0.087** 0.034

(0.075) (0.072) (0.056) (0.050) (0.035) (0.040) (0.036) (0.038)

Component 9 -0.059 0.098 0.069 0.019 -0.044 0.107*** 0.057 0.029

(0.076) (0.073) (0.057) (0.051) (0.036) (0.040) (0.037) (0.039)

Component 10 0.163** 0.095 0.006 0.048 0.203*** 0.125*** 0.007 0.068*

(0.079) (0.076) (0.059) (0.053) (0.037) (0.042) (0.038) (0.040)

Component 11 0.100 0.033 0.202*** 0.122** 0.086** 0.021 0.197*** 0.108***

(0.076) (0.073) (0.057) (0.051) (0.035) (0.040) (0.037) (0.038)

Sustainability factors Component 1

0.873*** 0.768*** 0.328*** 0.253***

(0.035) (0.040) (0.037) (0.038)

Component 4 0.177*** 0.143*** 0.023 0.288***

(0.037) (0.041) (0.038) (0.040)

Component 5 0.059* 0.106*** 0.108*** 0.166***

(0.035) (0.040) (0.037) (0.038)

Component 7 0.184*** 0.199*** 0.318*** 0.181***

(0.037) (0.041) (0.038) (0.040)

Component 12

0.022 0.141*** 0.374*** 0.005

(0.035) (0.040) (0.036) (0.038)

_cons 3.451*** 3.793*** 3.773*** 3.993*** 3.338*** 3.771*** 3.928*** 3.808***

(0.529) (0.509) (0.400) (0.354) (0.250) (0.283) (0.259) (0.271)

Number obs. 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 Adjusted R2 0.051 0.014 0.204 0.174 0.818 0.700 0.490 0.599 F( 5, 531) 157.22 85.57 21.75 40.24 Prob > F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Controls included in the estimates: location (coastal/not coastal), type of municipality, touristic zone, elevation, population

Legenda:

Factors not directly related to sustainability Sustainability factors

Component 2 General Infrastructures Component 1 Sustainable tourist policy and destination management Component 3 Events and Activities Component 4 Responsible tourist behaviour Component 6 Destination marketing Component 5 Local empowerment in the tourism sector Component 8 Gastronomy Component 7 Quality of environmental and natural resources Component 9 Historical and artistic features Component 12 Emphasis on maximising local economic development Component 10 Price-quality relationship Component 11 Tourist accommodation

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix: Table A1 - Component Solution for Destination Competitiveness Indicators

Component Solution Component

loadings

Original Model

Determinant

Refers directly to

sustainability

Component 1: Sustainable Tourism Policy and Destination Management (35.94%) Sust Public sector commitment to minimizing negative environmental impacts of tourism 0.8173 5 Sust Integrated approach to tourism planning 0.8022 5 Sust Political commitment to tourism 0.7606 5 Public sector commitment to minimizing negative social impacts of tourism on local community

0.7529 5 Sust

Environmentally compatible approach to tourism development planning 0.7391 5 Sust Emphasis on community participatory process in tourism planning 0.7299 5 Sust Cooperation between public and private sector for local tourism development 0.7264 5 Sust Collaboration among public sector units for local tourism development 0.7118 5 Sust Stewardship of the natural environment 0.6484 6 Sust Promotion of partnerships between public and private stakeholders 0.6475 6 Sust Tourist destination communication 0.6245 6 Effectiveness of destination management structure 0.6107 6 Sust Public sector commitment to tourism/hospitality education and training 0.6019 5 Sust Effectiveness in crafting tourism experiences 0.6002 6 Tourism impacts management and monitoring 0.5928 6 Sust Tourist guidance and information 0.5739 6 Promotion of partnerships among local tourist businesses 0.5642 6 Sust

Component 4: Responsible Tourist Behaviour (3.56%) Sust Tourists' interests in natural and cultural local heritage 0.8539 7 Sust Tourists' respect for local traditions and values 0.8224 7 Sust Tourists' enviromental awareness 0.7919 7 Sust

Component 5: Local empowerment in tourism industry (3.28%) Sust Use of IT by local tourism firms 0.7194 4 Sust Management capabilities of local tourism firms 0.7027 4 Sust Level of professional skills in tourism 0.5899 4 Sust Presence of local businesses 0,5500 4 Sust

Component 7: Quality of environmental and natural resources (2.73%) Sust Safety 0.7231 4 Sust Environmental quality 0.7077 4 Sust Natural resources 0.6359 1 Sust

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Component 12: Emphasis on maximising local economic development (1.65%) Sust Emphasis on community empowerment 0.4693 5 Sust Clear policies in creating formal employment opportunities 0.4648 5 Sust Public sector commitment to maximising economic impacts of tourism on local community 0.4144 5 Sust

Component 2: General Infrastructures (5.06%) Quality of road system 0.6896 3 Accessibility of destination 0.6442 4 Communication system 0.6298 3 Accessibility of facilities by disabled persons 0.6029 3 Sust Medical care facilities 0.6019 3 Quality of transportation services 0.5877 3 Proximity to other tourist destinations 0.5107 4 Sanitation, sewage and solid waste disposal 0.4245 3 Sust

Component 3: Events and Activities (3.56%) Evening entertainment and nightlife 0.7406 1 Leisure activities 0.7062 1 Events 0.6528 1 Shopping opportunities 0.5586 1 Cultural attractors 0.4289 1 Tourist oriented services 0.4215 2

Component 6: Destination Marketing (2.99%) Awareness of destination 0.6784 7 Effectiveness of destination positioning 0.6701 6 Effective market segmentation 0.5495 6

Component 8: Gastronomy (2.29%) Gastronomy 0.6498 1 Food services quality 0.6108 2 Local supply of goods 0.5165 4 Sust

Component 9: Historical and Artistic Features (1.93%) Historical and archaeological sites 0.8079 1 Artistic and architectural features 0.7133 1 Cultural attractors 0.5023 1

Component 10: Price-Quality relationship (1.88%) Value for money in accommodations 0.7778 4 Value for money in destination tourism experience 0.6655 4 Destination links with major origin markets 0.4639 4

Component 11: Tourist Accommodations (1.69%)

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Quantity of accommodations 0.6326 2 Quality of accommodations 0.4869 2 Environmental friendliness of accommodations 0.4406 2 Sust

Original Model Determinant: 1) CORE RESOURCES AND KEY ATTRACTORS 1 2) TOURISM SERVICES 2 3) GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURES 3 4) CONDITIONING AND SUPPORTING FACTORS 4 5) TOURISM POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 5 6) DESTINATION MANAGEMENT 6 7) DEMAND FACTOR 7

Source: Elaboration on survey data

View

publication statsV

iew publication stats