Explores the future roles of tourist information centers in Danish tourism, indicating a shift to decentralized models.
Purpose This paper explores how Danish destination management organizations (DMOs) define and plan the present and future role of tourist information centers (TICs) within increasingly digital tourism information landscapes, and how they balance political expectations, resource constraints and visitor information needs in this process. Design/methodology/approach The study draws on 15 semi-structured interviews with senior DMO representatives across Denmark analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic development focused on how tourist information center formats, governance structures and information channels are interpreted and reconfigured within DMOs' wider service portfolios. Findings DMOs regard the traditional, stand-alone TIC as symbolically important yet operationally inefficient, increasingly misaligned with tourists' information needs and constrained by municipal politics. They instead envision decentralized information ecosystems in which TIC functions are redistributed across partner businesses, ambassadors and mobile concepts, supported by a curated mix of digital tools and physical materials. Across cases, human interaction, local storytelling and decision support (curation) are framed as core value propositions that must be retained beyond the TIC building, while information search is understood as a hybrid “both/and” process rather than a choice between physical or digital channels. Originality/value The paper advances debates on the future of TICs beyond technology-led narratives by identifying provider-side decision logics, governance arrangements and service configuration. It envisages a “TIC of the future” as a distributed portfolio of touchpoints rather than a single venue, and identifies curation, capability-building among frontline tourism staff and destination-wide coordination as critical but under-developed for reconfiguring tourism information services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dragin‐Jensen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: