CROSS-BORDER INTER-DESTINATION COLLABORATION

AND INNOVATIONS – A LITERATURE REVIEW

Ksenija Vodeb, University of Primorska, Faculty of tourism studies – Turistica,

Portorož, Slovenia,

ksenija.vodeb@fts.upr.si

Miha Lesjak, University of Primorska, Faculty of tourism studies – Turistica,

Portorož, Slovenia,

miha.lesjak@fts.upr.si

Marinela Krstinić Nižić, University of Rijeka, Faculty of tourism and hospitality

management, Opatija, Croatia,

marikn@fthm.hr

Abstract

Today tourism destinations faced with extremely intense competitive environment on

the tourism market seek to enhance their competitive advantages through inter-destination

collaboration. Especially mature tourism destinations coping with the challenges of their

product repositioning acknowledge benefits of such collaborative networking due to its

innovative potential. Numerous studies and research confirm the cooperative behaviour

and partnerships on the destination level to be the key condition for sustainable planning

and long-term development, but notwithstanding inter-destination partnerships, benefits

(cost reduction, destination product innovation and efficiency), also challenges and

hindrances understanding need to be carefully considered in this context. A systematic

analysis of literature review on the topic will be elaborated aiming to provide a holistic

overview and possible platforms for further scientific research in that field. Inter-

destination collaboration seems to be an innovative approach in continuously challenging

competitiveness vortex of tourism destination market, which requires highly conscious

and intelligent individuals.

Key words: cross-border inter-destination collaboration, innovations,

destination competitiveness, partnership networks.

INTRODUCTION

In the age of globalization and emerging super nationalism, international

cross-border tourism became strengthen in providing more opportunities for

cooperation between neighbor destinations. Global tourism interactions force

tourism destinations to cooperate on the level of intra-destination but even more

inter-destination in order to become competitive on a global tourism market. The

intense competition on the tourism market represents a challenge for tourism

stakeholders requiring from them a lot of work and effort to establish intra-

destination cooperation (Żemła, 2016; Jegdić, Tomka, Knežević, Koščak,

Milošević, Škrbić & Keča, 2015). Intra-destination cooperation and coordination

are the foundation for better and fruitful inter-destination cooperation, which

might replace the traditional orientation of destination competition providing

innovative tourism initiatives (Fyall, Garrod & Tosun, 2006; Vodeb & Nemec

Rudež, 2016). With cross-border tourism initiatives, promotion of sustainable

tourism and development of innovation in tourism sector the European Union

(EU) offers many reasons to become leading tourism destination (Makkonen,

Wiliams, Weidenfeld & Kaisto, 2018). In the EU we can already identify many

inter cooperation initiatives focusing on innovative strategies for example InnoBB

- Brandenburg and Berlin, Germany, Lower and Upper Austria specialization

areas, taking into account the cross-border innovative dimensions and the Dutch-

Belgian corridor Eindhoven-Leuven with innovation IMEC and Holst Centre

(OECD, 2013). Best practices guidance for tourism innovation (CSES, 2013) and

several programs and initiatives for development of sustainable transnational

tourism products has been established and funded by European Union (European

Commission, 2016a). Besides, cross-border cooperation in EU has been founded

within European Neighborhood Instrument (ENI – 2014 - 2020), previously

European Neighborhood and Partnership (2007 – 2013) with much emphasis on

tourism innovation projects (European Commission, 2016b).

The most complex tasks considering innovations within the inter-destination

collaboration are identifying and engaging key actors (destination stakeholders)

with sufficient expertise for economic development and knowledge transfers. This

paper aims to shed some light on the topic by analytically reviewing results from

previous studies from the field of cross-border inter-destination collaboration and

innovations. Therefore, we present some of the recent research, merging the fields

of cross-border inter-destination collaboration and innovations in tourism.

CROSS-BORDER INTER-DESTINATION COLABORATION AND

INNOVATIONS

The conceptualization of cross-border meaning is based on previous major

research on impacts on individuals living close to borders and presented by Paasi

(1996, p. 75) who states: »Boundaries are not merely lines on the ground but above

all, manifestations of social practice and discourse. The construction of the

meaning of communities and their boundaries occurs through narratives: ‘stories’

that provide people with common experiences, history and memories, and

therefore bind these people together«. Therefore, the definition of the cross-border

region, which might include many neighbor destinations consist of “all adjacent

territories belonging to different nations, regardless of differences in terms of size,

geographic conditions, history, culture and socio - economic conditions, whose

economic and social life is directly and significantly affected by proximity to an

international boundary” (Weidenfeld, 2013, p. 192). Cross-border cooperation

within the European regions, so-called Euro regions separated by administrative

borders has so far received as much of the research focus on the topic. Based on

the results, cross-border cooperation promote opportunity for economic, social

and territorial cohesion and poses significant potential for economic development,

innovation and knowledge sharing (Hills, 2016; Herzog, 2014; Johnson, 2009;

Perkmann, 2003; Perkmann, 2002; Trippl 2010).

Many authors has identified the importance of the inter-destination cooperation

(Fyall & Garrod, 2005; Fyall, Garrod & Wang, 2012; Henderson, 2001a; Naipaul,

Wang & Okumus, 2009; Wang Hutchinson, Okumus & Naipaul, 2013; Żemła,

2016; Vodeb & Nemec Rudež, 2016) however, Żemła (2016) argue that the

phenomenon was not yet been analyzed in-depth.

Nowadays many global tourism destinations compete not only to attract global

tourists’ visits but also to act sustainable with innovative solutions that lead to

attractive tourism products and initiatives. Looking at regional tourism

development huge competition between neighbor destination weakness the

overall efficiency and effectiveness of the regional tourism development

(Prideaux & Cooper, 2002; Jegdić et al., 2015). Therefore, there are many reasons

why neighbor destinations ought to cooperate with each other. The few most

important reasons identified in studies of Wang et al. (2013) and Naipaul et al.

(2009) are creation of spatially wider tourism region for attracting larger number

of tourists, enhancing destination product portfolio, cost reduction and efficiency

of marketing campaigns. Since the inter-destination cooperation is happening

generally between two neighbor countries with different government, political and

economic system, the implementation might be even more difficult and

demanding than establishing intra-destination collaboration (Żemła, 2016) within

the same socio-economic and political system. Researchers has identified many

cross-border tourism governance obstacles seen as “multi-scalar institutional

mismatches” to lacking connection between cross-border key stakeholders

(Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2017; Blasco, Guia & Prats, 2014). Makkonen et al.

(2018) presented the factors that interfere with establishing cross-border

knowledge transfer and innovations. Among those technological capabilities and

human capital presents the core for successful knowledge transfers initiatives.

Additionally the trust between the cross-border partners is essential component

for success and therefore influences the choice of innovation partners (Zach &

Hill, 2017).

Innovation processes is the major driving force and essential generator of

growth in global market economies that influence increasing productivity,

profitability and quality, thus improving the overall competitiveness of the

tourism economy (OECD, 2006). Innovation in tourism sector is a concept that

falls within the scope of service and innovation and thus cannot completely share

the general concepts of innovation (Tintoré, Aguiló, Bravo & Mulet 2003; Hall,

2008; Camisón & Monfort-Mir, 2012; Križaj, Brodnik & Bukovec, 2014).

Nevertheless, the innovations in the tourism sector can be linked and implemented

to other non-tourism sectors creating new knowledge and lead to product

innovations (Makkonen & Hokkanen, 2013; Weindenfeld et al., 2010). Innovation

is thus becoming a key factor in economic development and success with many

positive examples in the tourism sector as well. Tourism destinations consist of

many tourism stakeholders that rely on shared recourses, networks and mutual

activities (Hjalager, 2000), consequently represent an enormous challenge for

management in order to coordinate, organize and enhance the innovation process.

Achieving positive results from inter-destination cooperation takes not only

time and efforts but also require of destinations from both sides of the border to

think about innovative ideas and tourism solutions. This was confirmed recently

in the study of two Mediterranean destinations Portorož in Slovenia and Opatija

in Croatia conducted by Vodeb and Nemec Rudež (2016) where respondents

involved in a qualitative research declared that establishing cooperation between

tourism stakeholders from both destinations means a starting point for building

new, innovative tourist offer and arrangements. The tourist offer and

arrangements based on the inter-destination collaboration might result in reaching

new and distant markets with a common goal to overcome the seasonality issues

and upgrade destination product quality.

Lundquist and Trippl (2009) prepared theoretical analysis of different stages

in the development of cross-border regional innovation systems with comparative

analysis of the innovation capabilities of two cross-border areas in Europe, namely

the Öresund (Southern Sweden and Eastern Denmark), and the Centrope (Austria,

Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary). The results showed that the Öresund

region and the Centrope area differ enormously regarding their capacity to

develop an integrated innovation space (Lindquist & Trippl, 2009), which is

probably due to functional and cognitive distance between the observed areas. The

Öresund region is clearly many steps ahead when compared to the Centrope area

in fields of knowledge transfer with not many economic and innovation

inequalities, while for Centrope region the observations are that cross-border

knowledge interactions are generally weakly developed. Additionally “the

integration process is still relatively strongly oriented on exploiting cost and price

differences, leading to rather asymmetrical economic linkages” (Lindquist &

Trippl, 2009, p. 28).

Ness, Aarstad, Haughland and Grønseth (2014) using a case study method

explored the contribution of inter-destination ties to destination development for

Innovative Mountain Tourism (IMT) in Southern and Eastern Norway. The results

indicates that bridge ties initiate network dynamics between public sector actors,

multi-destination actors, and industry-specific product and service providers play

important and complementary roles in this developmental process (Ness, Aarstad,

Haughland & Grønseth, 2014).

Fyall, Garrod and Tosun (2006) reported similar findings claiming that inter-

destination collaboration presents an opportunity for trust and commitment

between partners and therefore it enables a partner network. Indeed, tourism

destinations are not networks per se but with equal participation, introduction of

innovations; collective action and orchestrated coordination among the

participants the destination management is capable of accomplish that (Żemła,

2016; Vodeb & Nemec Rudež, 2016).

Stoffelen and Vanneste (2017) compared the position of tourism in region-

building processes in the newly developing German-Czech cross-border region

and the more ‘mature’ German-Belgian borderlands. They discovered that

development of local cross-border tourism projects is no guarantee for positive

destination wide regional development impacts (Stoffelen & Vanneste, 2017).

Weidenfeld (2013), who introduced the concept of cross-border innovation

systems to the tourism literature, discovered that much more attention has been

given to the impact of the geographic conditions of cross-border regions instead

to the potential contribution of tourism facilitating innovative processes. The

study findings point out the potential role of the tourism sector in enhancing

regional knowledge and promoting cohesion and competitiveness between cross-

border regions, which urges comprehensive empirical research in order to

understand cross-border funded initiatives.

Similar conclusions are presented in the study of Makkonen et al. (2018) using

research method of interviews with participants in tourism related EU-funded

projects in the Finnish – Russian cross-border region. The findings of the study

outlines the importance of EU-funding in facilitating knowledge transfer and

innovation between the two countries. Despite the fact that differences in

language, business culture and administrative/legislative systems present the

practical barriers to cooperation, that can be overcome using cross-border

differences in culture and technological capabilities which drive cross-border

knowledge transfer and innovation in the cross-border region (Makkonen et al.

2018).

In Table 1, we present most recent, relevant research results regarding our

research goal, namely general methodology and findings in the research field of

inter-destination collaboration and innovations in Europe. The qualitative

scientific approach prevails with interviews, comparative analysis, case studies,

content analysis and conceptual frameworks. Most importantly, findings indicate

mostly benefits of inter-destination collaboration in the sense of dynamics

contribution to the partnerships, tourism/destination product improvement and

collaborative innovation process development. The most important findings of the

studies fall under the role of knowledge transfer and innovation in the context of

cross-border regional innovation systems.

Table 1: Inter-destination collaboration and innovation initiatives

Reference METH. RESP. INTER-

DESTINATION

COLLABORATION

FINDINGS

INNOVATION

FIELD

REGION

Ness,

Aarstad,

Haugland &

Grønseth

(2014)

Qualitative

study;

semi-

structured

interviews,

extensive

archival

data, and

observation

13 org.

(public

sector

actors,

multi-

destination

firms, and

industry

consulting

firms and

service

providers)

Bridge ties contribute

to important dynamics

in the intra-destination

network.

Destination

development

(Innovative

Mountain

Tourism (IMT)

7

destinatio

ns

(Southern

and

Eastern

Norway)

Jegdić,

Tomka,

Knežević,

Koščak,

Milošević,

Škrbić &

Keča (2016)

General

analytic-

synthetic

method of

research

(document

content

analysis)

Regional

destination

organization

s

in Slovenia

Cooperation amongst

destinations within a

wider tourist region

for improvement of

the tourist offer

Future

applications of

network

analysis should

also pay

attention to

imitation and

innovation

processes

Regional

destinatio

n

organizati

ons

in

Slovenia

Fuglsang,

Sørensen,

Jørgensen &

Nordli,

(2016)

A case

study of

two

extreme

cases of

tourist

destinations

Danish

beach

destination:

key persons

in the

innovation

project,

persons

representing

other private

and

organization

al actors;

Downhill

cycling:

five

informants –

the key

players in

the

developmen

t phase

Collaborative

innovation processes

development in

tourist destinations,

where

conditions are hostile

to such collaborative

efforts;

The concepts of

innovation

sphere,

diplomacy and

compromise

Danish

summer

holiday

destinatio

n;

Downhill

cycling in

an Alpine

ski centre

Stoffelen &

Vanneste,

(2017)

Reconstruct

ion of the

evolution of

cross-

border

tourism

Five semi-

structured

in-depth

interviews

(policymake

rs connected

Political mobilization

of cross-border history

and identity may

lower the perceived

barriers of

administrative borders

/ The cross-

border

Vogtland

region

between

the federal

dynamics in

the last

decade and

place

identity

among

inhabitants

and DMO

members;

Mixed-

method

case-study

to the

destination

merger;

additional

interview

with the

new

Vogtland

DMO

among tourism

stakeholders, unify

their strategic

economic and

management

orientation, and

facilitate internal

region-building

through socio-cultural

coalition construction.

states of

Saxony

and

Thuringia

(German)

Lindquist &

Trippl,

(2009)

Conceptual

framework

+ a

comparative

analysis of

cross-

border RIS

developmen

t

The key

structures

and

dimensions

of the cross-

border RIS

developmen

t in the

Öresund

region and

the

Centrope

area.

The Öresund region

and the Centrope area

differ enormously in

capacity to develop an

integrated innovation

space.

Regional

innovation

system

approach

The

Öresund

region

(Southern

Sweden

and

Eastern

Denmark,

and the

Centrope

area

(Austria,

Slovakia,

Czech

Republic

and

Hungary)

Vodeb &

Nemec

Rudež

(2016)

Qualitative

research

method

with Semi-

structured

face-to-face

interviews

(representat

ives of

tourism

or tourism-

related

organizatio

n)

10

interviews

in each

destination

(careful

interviewee

selection of

managers

from

tourism

field)

Identification of

several indicators of

the opportunities and

some barriers for

inter-destination

collaboration between

Opatija and Portorož

as close substitutes.

Cooperative

attitude based

on tourism

product

compatibility as

starting point

for innovative

tourism offer

especially for

distant markets

aiming to

overcome the

seasonality

Opatija

(CRO)

and

Portorož

(SLO)

Weidenfeld,

(2013)

Conceptual

framework

/ Similarities at the

regional, sectoral and

managerial levels;

mobility, connectivity

and

internationalization of

knowledge; historical,

socio-institutional and

cultural variation and

The role of

tourism

knowledge

transfer and

innovation in

the context of

European cross

border regional

innovation

systems

/

Source: authors

To sum up, we might assume that stakeholders’ innovative activities and

routines do not a priori represent a success and fruitful cooperation among the

destinations making them forthrightly more competitive. In some cases,

cooperation brings an advantage for destinations but there are examples where the

disagreements, lack of trust, and competition between the stakeholders, rather than

cooperation interfere joint development (Bramwell & Lane, 2000). Nevertheless,

little or no cooperation can limit the potentials of innovative activities performed

by tourism stakeholders and therefore consequently has negative impact on their

competitiveness (Fuglsang, Sørensen, Jørgensen Nordli, 2016; Baggio & Cooper,

2010).

Within the tourism literature, the destination competitiveness presents one of

the critical fields of research. There are several definitions and interpretations of

destination competitiveness, which are not in accordance with one another.

According to Dwyer and Kim (2003), this is a result of similar challenges with

understanding the concept (Żemła, 2014). Several models present the complexity

of the destination competitiveness concept. In year, 2003 Ritchie and Crouch

presented a Conceptual Model of Destination Competitiveness with five key

determinants: namely destination policy, planning and development, destination

management, core resources and attractors, and supporting factors and resources

the governance

dimension

Weidenfeld,

Williams &

Butler,

(2010)

In-depth

interviews

with tourist

attraction

managers

and key

informants

in two

contrasting

spatial

clusters

Interviews

with

attraction

managers

(Lizard

cluster (10)

and

Newquay

cluster(13))

Spatial proximity,

product similarity

and market similarity

facilitate knowledge

transfers and

innovation spill overs,

at the local and the

regional scales for

tourism attractions

sector

Knowledge

transfer and

innovation

Cornwall,

England

Makkone,

Wiliams,

Weidenfeld

& Kaisto,

(2018)

The semi-

structured

interview

framework

Tourism

focused

CBC

projects

funded by

the ENPI

CBC

program

financed

jointly by

the EU,

Finland and

Russia

Stronger local support

of decision makers;

results and innovation

agreed upon at the

start of the project;

more flexible impact

evaluation and include

long term benefits

based on innovation

Cross-border

knowledge

transfer and

innovation

Finnish-

Russian

cross-

border

region

(Gomezelj & Mihalič, 2008). Crouch (2007) presented three groups of destination

competitiveness studies:

the competitive positions of specific destinations,

the particular aspects of destination competitiveness,

general models of destination competitiveness.

Other competitiveness models are presented in the studies of Dwyer and Kim

(2003); Heath (2003); Mazanec, Wöber and Zins (2007); Ritchie and Crouch

(2003) etc. Żemła (2010, p. 249) presented the concept of the destination

competitiveness that is “often developed in approach typical for regional

economics and is connected with the ability to create a competitive offer or, even

more broadly to develop tourism in a sustainable way”. With awareness of fierce

competition on the tourism market, the same author stress that this is not, the only

approach to this concept and therefore he proposes reaching out for more

entrepreneurial approach.

Undoubtedly, the destination competitiveness nowadays indicates success on

the tourism market aligned with sustainable guidelines and thus demands from the

destination management continuous sustainable valorization of tourist resources.

Cross-border inter-destination collaboration might provide an innovative potential

or an approach for further sustainable tourism development in regions where there

are motives and trust of destination stakeholders. Their coordinated collaboration

might lead to competitive positions on the tourism market generating innovative

destination products and solutions as a corollary of knowledge transfer and

innovative initiatives. CONCLUSION

This paper consider cross-border inter-destination collaboration as an

opportunity for generating innovative solutions and initiatives regarding

destination product quality and competitive position within the tourism market.

Among numerous advantages and benefits, cross-border inter-destination

collaboration also challenges destination management with some hindrances

mostly concerning collaboration among the stakeholders. Those can be overcome

by subtle destination management orchestration considering interests and motives

from both sides within the inter-destination partnership.

Some limitations of this paper derive from its type, as it is a literature review,

nonetheless it represents a systematic overview of recent research results from the

field and make solid base for further empirical research.

REFERNCES

Baggio, R. and Cooper C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: the

effect of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(8), 1-15.

Blasco, D., Guia, J. and Prats, L. (2014). Emergence of governance in cross-border

destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 159–173.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000). Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics,

practice and sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Camisón C., Monfort - Mir V.M. (2012). Measuring innovation in tourism from the

Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management, 33(4),

776-789.

Crouch, G.I. (2007). Measuring tourism competitiveness: research, theory and the

WEF index.

CSES (2013). Enhancing the competitiveness of tourism in the EU. Sevenoaks: Centre

for Strategy & Evaluation Practices.

Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: determinants and

indicators. Current issues in tourism, 6(5), 369-414.

European Commission. (2016a). Sustainable transnational tourism products.

European Commission. (2016b). European neighborhood and partnership instrument

(ENPI). http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/european-neighbourhoodand-partnership-

instrumentenpi_en (Accessed 2 September 2018).

Fuglsang, L., Sørensen, F. and Jørgensen Nordli, A. (2016). Bridging conflicting

innovation spheres of tourism innovation: the role of diplomacy. Journal of Innovation

Economics & Management, 2(20), 109-130.

Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. (2005). Tourism marketing: A collaborative approach.

Clevedon: Channel View Books.

Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Tosun, C. (2006). Destination Marketing: A Framework for

Future Research. in: Metin Kozak and Luisa Andreu (eds). Progress in Tourism

Marketing. Oxford: Elsevier, 75–86.

Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review

of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination

Marketing & Management, 1(1), 10–26.

Gomezelj, D.O., & Mihalič, T. (2008). Destination competitiveness—Applying

different models, the case of Slovenia. Tourism management, 29(2), 294-307.

Hall, C.M. (2008). Tourism and Innovation, Routledge, New York.

Heath, E. (2003). Towards a model to enhance destination competitiveness: A

Southern African perspective. CAUTHE 2003: Riding the Wave of Tourism and

Hospitality Research, 500.

Henderson, J.C. (2001a). Regionalization and tourism: The Indonesia-Malaysia-

Singapore growth triangle. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2-4), 78–93.

Herzog, L.A. (2014). Globalization, place and twenty-first-century international

border regions: An Introduction to the special issue, Global Society, 28 (4) 391-7.

Hjalager, A.M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism

Management, 31(2010), 1- 12.

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/tourism/offer/sustainable/transnational-products

(Accessed 2 September 2018).

Jegdić, V., Tomka, D., Knežević, M., Koščak, M., Milošević, S., Škrbić, I. and Keča,

K. (2015). “Improving Tourist Offer through Inter-Destination Cooperation in a Tourist

Region”, International Journal of Regional Development, 3(1), 31–49.

Johnson, C.M. (2009). Cross-border regions and territorial restructuring in central

Europe: Room for more transboundary space, European Urban and Regional Studies, 16

(2), 177-191.

Križaj, D., Brodnik, A. and Bukovec B. (2014). A Tool for Measurement of Innovation

Newness and Adoption in Tourism Firms. International Journal of Tourism Research,

16(2), 113-125.

Lundquist, K.J., & Trippl, M. (2013). Distance, proximity and types of cross-border

innovation systems. Regional Studies, 47(3), 450-460.

Lundquist, K.J. and Trippl, M. (2009). Towards cross-border innovation spaces. A

theoretical analysis and empirical comparison of the Öresund region and the Centrope

area. SRE - Discussion Papers, 2009/05. Institut fur Regional- und Umweltwirtschaft,

WU, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna.

Makkonen, T. and Hokkanen, T. (2013). ICT Innovation and local economy: Mobile

game as a tourist attraction. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13(3), 257-

268.

Makkonen, T., Williams, A.M., Weidenfeld, A. and Kaisto, V. (2018). Cross-border

knowledge transfer and innovation in the European neighborhood: Tourism cooperation

at the Finnish-Russian border. Tourism Management, 68(2018) 140-151.

Mazanec, J.A., Wöber, K., & Zins, A.H. (2007). Tourism destination competitiveness:

from definition to explanation?. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 86-95.

Naipaul, S., Wang, Y. and Okumus, F. (2009).Regional destination marketing: A

collaborative approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(5–6), 462–481.

Ness, H., Aarstad, J., Haugland, S. A. and Grønseth, B.O. (2014). Destination

development: the role of inter-destination bridge ties. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2),

183-195.

OECD (2013). Innovation-driven Growth in Regions: The Role of Smart

Specialization. https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/smart-specialisation.pdf (Accessed

1 September 2018).

Paasi, A. (1996). Territories, boundaries and consciousness. Chichester: John Wiley

& Sons Ltd.Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.

Perkmann, M. (2003). Cross-border regions in Europe: Significance and drivers of

regional cross-border co-operation, European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 153-71.

Perkmann, M. (2002). Euroregions: institutional entrepreneurship in the European

Union. In Globalization, regionalization and cross-border regions (pp. 103-124). Palgrave

Macmillan, London.

Prideaux, B. and Cooper, C. (2002). Marketing and destination growth: A symbiotic

relationship or simple coincidence? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 35–51.

Ritchie, J.B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable

tourism perspective. Cabi.

Stoffelen, A. and Vanneste, D. (2017). Tourism and cross-border regional

development. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 1013-1033.

Tintoré, J., Aguiló, E., Bravo, A. and Mulet, J. (2003). Innovation in the tourism sector:

results from a pilot study in the Balearic Islands, Tourism Economics, 9(3), 279-295.

Trippl, M. (2010).Developing cross-border regional innovation systems: Key factors

and challenges, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(2), 150-60.

Vodeb, K. and Nemec Rudež, H. (2016). Possibilities for Inter-Destination

Collaboration in Tourism in the Case of Opatija and Portorož: A Managerial Perspective.

Revija za Sociologiju, 46 (2), 205–227.

Wang, Y., Hutchinson, J., Okumus, F. and Naipaul, S. (2013). Collaborative marketing

in a regional destination: Evidence from central Florida. International Journal of Tourism

Research, 15(3), 285–297.

Weidenfeld, A. (2013). Tourism and cross-border regional innovation systems. Annals

of Tourism Research, 42, 191-213.

Weidenfeld, A., Williams, A. and Butler, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer and

innovation among attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 604-626.

Zach, F. and Hill, T. (2017). Network, knowledge and relationship impacts on

innovation in tourism destinations. Tourism Management, 62, 196-207.

Żemła, M. (2010). Destination Competitiveness and Inter-Organizational Relations

Competitiveness Paradigm. Challenges of Application. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu

Szczecińskiego. Scientific Journal. Service Management, 5, 249-263.

Żemła, M. (2016). Inter-destination cooperation: Forms, facilitators and inhibitors –

The case of Poland. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 3(2014), 241-252.