From Local Tourism Promotion towards Regional Cluster Policies

The Top of Denmark WP 6 Case Study

1. Clusters, tourism, and public policy

2. Case study: Destination Top of Denmark

3. Reflections on methods

Henrik Halkier & Pennie F. HenriksenAalborg University, Denmark

halkier@ihis.aau.dk, pennie@ihis.aau.dk

General cluster characteristics

• inter-dependent firms

• cooperative competition, trust-based relations

• 'community' with public policy support

Tourism clusters?

• frequent key role of external firms

• free-riding widespread

• unstable SMEs hindering building of trust

• limited public intervention

CLUSTERS, TOURISM, AND PUBLIC POLICY

Tourism policies• traditional emphasis on local information and external

promotion• gradual increase of product development and branding

Key challenges for destination developemnt• Localism

– economies of geographical scale >< ingrained exposure

• Short-termism– selective change >< comprehensive continuity

CLUSTERS, TOURISM, AND PUBLIC POLICY

The Tourism Experience• 250 km of coastline and sandy beaches

• climate varies depend on season

• small enterprises, holiday homes and camping

Institutional context• from nine to three municipalities

Destination development phases • Emergence (1986-1996): Tourism associations

and municipalities start collaborating

• Professionalisation (1996-2006): More effective market communication

• Redevelopment 2007- 2015: Creating an all-year tourism destination

DESTINATIONTOP OF DENMARK

DESTINATION TOP OF DENMARKDeveloping a decentralised network

Organisation Why? What?

Emer-gence

The Foundation Top of Denmark (FTOD)

(tourism association network)

Coordinated marketing, based on local product knowledge

Reservation System

Service

Marketing

The DMO Top of Denmark

(FTOD and municipalities)

Prolonging of season

Product development

Networking within sector

Re-develop-ment

The DMO Top of Denmark

(FTOD and municipalities)

Develop product on the basis of market intelligence and extended local product knowledge

All-year tourism

Networking outside traditional tourism sector

Organisational change

• from fragmentation towards centralising network

Funding change

• external opportunities/demands

• gradual widening of resource base

Gradual strategy development

• from service optimisation via joint marketing

• towards product development initiatives

DESTINATION TOP OF DENMARKDeveloping a decentralised network

DESTINATION TOP OF DENMARKKnowledge and networking / 1

EMERGENCE PHASE

Policy initiatives

Actors Knowledge processes

Reservation System

Marketing

Product development

Networking within sector

Central

Use existing coordination experience

Interactions regional/(national)

Local Produce knowledge of local experiences

Interactions local/regional

Joint Produce network interaction rules

Transformation/contextualisation

DESTINATION TOP OF DENMARKKnowledge and networking / 2

RE-DEVELOPMENT PHASE

Policy initiatives

Actors Knowledge processes

All-year tourism

Networking outside traditional tourism sector

Central

Use product development experience

Produce market analysis

Interactions regional/national

Export/impact on national initiatives

Local Produce knowledge of local experiences

Interactions local/regional

Joint Adjust network interaction rules

Transformation/contextualisation

DESTINATION TOP OF DENMARKKnowledge and networking / 3

Some conclusions relating to EURODITE hypotheses

• intra/extra-regional combination important (intra dominating in 3 cases)

• importance of knowledge about knowledge (limited in cock-up case)

• importance of KIBS, but not always network ‘spanners’

• importance of tacit localised knowledge (mobilisation key in 3 cases)

DESTINATION TOP OF DENMARKKnowledge and networking / 4

Practical points

• difficult to distinguish between who/where etc -> repetitive text

• flexible distinction between phases -> difficult to compare

Added value

• sufficiently comprehensive to generate ‘thick questioning’

• possible to relate to EURODITE hypotheses

Pending issues issues

• difficult to conclude prior to cross-case analyses have been undertaken

• comprehensively different?

REFLECTIONS ONMETHODS