Urban management, destination management and urban destination management: a comparative review with issues and examples from New Zealand

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to first outline the central thrust of two currently non-convergent but intrinsically related streams of research – urban management and destination management – and explore the links between them. Both require an approach which coordinates and integrates multiple actors and functions in dynamic settings.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper then analyses empirical examples from three New Zealand cities to illustrate relationships between destination management and urban management in practice.

Findings

These cases show that without being labelled as such, quite a lot of activity takes place which reflects dimensions of both destination management and urban management, especially in terms of integration and coordination. This raises questions of just what constitutes destination management, a series of discrete ad hoc actions or some broader vision and framework.

Originality/value

Empirical evidence from the three New Zealand cities shows that, with the exception of Dunedin, destination management is not a term or a concept that is explicitly used there. Nevertheless, without being labelled as such, in practice there is quite a lot of activity taking place which reflects dimensions of both destination management and urban management, especially in terms of integration and coordination.

Citation

Pearce, D.G. (2015), "Urban management, destination management and urban destination management: a comparative review with issues and examples from New Zealand", International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-08-2014-0002