Destination Network Analysis

The relationship, not the individual firm. The method represents a destination as a graph whose nodes are stakeholder organizations, such as hotels, attractions, transport providers, intermediaries, and public agencies, and whose edges are ties like collaboration, information exchange, or referrals. Scott, Baggio, and Cooper argue that a destination's capacity to coordinate and compete is a property of this relational structure as a whole, so the analysis measures patterns of connection across actors rather than the attributes of any single organization.

Density, the share of possible ties that actually exist, indicates how richly connected a destination is. A denser network can share knowledge, coordinate joint action, and adapt to shocks more readily, because information and cooperation can flow through many channels. A sparse or fragmented network signals weaker collective capability and greater difficulty acting as a unified destination. Cohesion measures like density and average path length are therefore read as indicators of a destination's coordinating capacity, with structural gaps highlighting where governance interventions may be needed.

Centrality measures reveal which organizations are structurally pivotal. Degree centrality marks the most directly connected actors, often a destination management organization or anchor attraction, while betweenness centrality identifies brokers who sit on the paths between others and control flows of information and referrals. These central actors typically wield disproportionate influence over coordination, but their prominence is also a vulnerability: a destination overly dependent on one hub can be a single point of failure, which network analysis makes explicit and analyzable.