Tourism and cross border regional innovation systems

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. xx, No. xx, pp. 191–213, 2013 0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.003

TOURISM AND CROSS BORDER REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS Adi Weidenfeld Middlesex University, UK Hanken School of Economics, Finland

Abstract: While the impact of the geographic conditions of cross border regions on learning processes have recently attracted attention, the potential contribution of tourism and its mobilities to facilitating innovative processes in cross border regions has been ignored. The paper examines the role of tourism knowledge transfer and innovation in the context of European cross border regional innovation systems. It questions whether intensive movement of people, across relatively open international borders, influences knowledge transfer and diffusion of innovations. A conceptual framework including aspects related to mobility, connectivity, internationalisation, socio-cultural proximity and governance dimensions is suggested for future research studies. The paper highlights possible implications for EU cross border regional funded initiatives and policies. Keywords: tourism innovation, tourism mobilities, knowledge transfer, cross border tourism. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION International boundaries have traditionally been defined and demarcated for the purpose of constructing barriers to human interaction and mobilities including the flow of people, goods, services, and ideas between countries. As a result, tourist destinations in Cross Border Regions (CBRs) have traditionally developed within the constraints of competing national sovereignties (Timothy, 1999). However, in the age of globalization and emerging supranationalism, border policies tend to support trade, easier passage, cooperation and liberalization of economic activities, including international cross border tourism. This is epitomised by the opening of formerly relatively impervious borders in Europe, NAFTA and Southeast Asia (Gelbman & Timothy, 2010; Newman, 2006). These, and global tendencies of regionalisation in general and those following the political collapse in Central and Adi Weidenfeld is a senior lecturer in tourism management Middlesex University (Department of Economics & International Development Hendon Campus, Room W222 Williams Building, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BT, UK) and a visiting researcher in Hanken School of Economics. His research interests include tourist attractions, tourism mobilities, tourism innovation and cross border regions. 191

192

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

Eastern Europe and the continuing enlargement of the European Union (EU) in particular, have given rise to the growth of the number and importance of CBRs in recent years (Lundquist & Trippl, in press). A cross border region is broadly defined as an area consisting 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 (Hansen 1981; Lundquist & Trippl, 2009,). Since the middle of the 20th century cross border regional cooperation has been established in the form of supranational alliances, aimed at decreasing the political barriers created by boundaries primarily in trade terms but also in other areas, such as education, human welfare, migration, environmental measures, economic development and tourism (Timothy & Teye, 2004). In the long-term, the competitive advantages of CBRs increasingly rest on their capacity to create an integrated innovation space, characterised by a considerable cross border flow of knowledge, expertise, skills, brought about by a high intensity of human mobility including students, labour, networking among firms, academic collaborations, university-industry partnerships etc. (Lundquist & Trippl, 2009, in press). Therefore, it is surprising that research on Cross Border Regional Innovation Systems (CBRIS) have only recently emerged, particularly in the European context, where EU funding is aimed at decreasing the political barriers and increasing regional competitiveness, European cohesion and economic prosperity for peripheral areas. The concept of innovation systems refers to the complex interactions between firms, people and institutions, which influence knowledge transfer and innovation policies (Hall & Williams, 2008). Regional innovation systems is constituted by ‘‘a subsystem of knowledge generation and diffusion (knowledge infrastructure dimension), which includes research and development institutes, educational bodies and technology transfer organisations, and a subsystem of knowledge application and exploitation (business dimension), which is made up of the companies located in the region’’ (Trippl, 2010, p. 151). Previous limited empirical work on RIS in CBRs includes cooperation in cross border innovative processes (Koschatzky, 2000), innovation capacity (Lundquist & Trippl, 2009) and preliminary theoretical discussions on cross border learning regions (Maskell & Tornqvist, 1999) and creativity (Tangkjær & Jonsson, 2005). The most recent research includes a conceptual framework for CBRIS and their capacity to develop an integrated innovation space. The latter is determined by conditions of economic structure, science, knowledge bases, nature of linkages, institutional set-ups, policy structures and degree of physical proximity in terms of accessibility resulting in strong cross border regional innovation performance (Lundquist & Trippl, 2009, in press). CBRIS remain institutionally embedded in their respective national innovation systems and regulatory frameworks which differ significantly with respect to their economic structures, R&D bases, socio-institutional set-ups, cultural factors, and consequently, innovation

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

193

performances. National boundaries are lines that mark the limits of national sovereignty by demarcating where a state exercises its legal authority (e.g. filtering flows of goods and people). They also mark distinct differences in political and ideological systems, administrative systems, economic and social structures, and can significantly influence the tourism experience (Gelbman & Timothy, 2010; Timothy & Tosun, 2003). The paper questions whether and how tourism contributes to the levels of integration and to knowledge transfer and innovation in CBRIS as well as examines whether and how the nature of borders and bordering processes contribute to tourism innovation by suggesting the following competing arguments. Firstly, tourism, like any other service sectoral innovation system within a cross border region, is another sector, which has several identified determinants, which influence its contribution. Secondly, some of the determinants are particularly influenced by cross border conditions. Thirdly, borders, borderlands and bordering processes influence the nature of tourism knowledge transfer and innovation. The paper begins by defining some of the main terms and concepts discussed in this paper, including cross border tourism, knowledge transfer and diffusion of tourism innovation. Then it suggests a conceptual framework for studying the potential contribution of tourism innovation and the tourism sector to CBRIS as well as a research agenda and implications for cross border regional innovation policies in general and in the EU cross border regional integration and cohesion context in particular. TOURISM AND REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS New or problem solving ideas used in a process, such as reorganisation, cutting costs, implementing new budgetary systems, improving communication or assembling products in teams are all examples of innovations (Hjalager, 2010a), defined as the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services involving the capacity to change and adapt (Kanter, 1983). The diffusion of innovation and knowledge transfer are often conceptualised in terms of two distinguishable approaches—geographical (mostly national and regional) and sectoral (Sundbo, Orfila-Sintes, & Sørensen, 2007). The geographical approach depends on the relations among spatially proximate components and actors, who facilitate intraregional interactions and a circulation of knowledge, information, resources and human capital within and between subsystems and carry out innovations within institutional frameworks (Asheim & Coenen, 2006; Cooke, Oranga, & Etxebarria, 1997; Pinto & Guerreiro, 2010). The regional innovation system concept (RIS) is a systemic approach to carrying out diffusion of innovations at the regional scale, which is used as a comprehensive framework for analysing complex innovative profiles, trajectories, and for guiding implementation of regional innovation strategies (Asheim & Coenen, 2006; Pinto & Guerreiro, 2010). The RIS as a territorial innovation system is based on historical and technological trajectories with ‘sticky’ knowledge and localised learning,

194

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

which can become more innovative and competitive by promoting systemic relationships between production structures and knowledge infrastructure (Asheim & Coenen, 2006). Spatial proximity and institutional structures for innovative activities engender intensive interactions and a circulation of knowledge, resources and human capital within and between regional subsystems (Trippl, 2010). In the bottom-up approach, firms are treated as the centre of inter-organisational networks, and thus firms’ inter-organisational cooperation can be regarded as systemic and dynamic complex linkages between various kinds of geographical actors with particular institutional features (Hall & Williams, 2008). The sectoral innovation systems concept is based on the idea that different industries and sectors, such as tourism, operate under different knowledge, regulatory and technology regimes, and that they are characterised by particular combinations of opportunity, through mobilising their specific constellation of regimes (Hjalager et al., 2008). Tourism innovation systems are defined as ‘‘. . .the parts and aspects of the economic structure and institutional set-up affecting learning and innovation in tourism firms’’ (Sundbo, Orfila-Sintes, & Sørensen, 2007, p. 93), and are both geographical and sectoral systems in destination regions (Sundbo et al., 2007). They are composed of a large number of interacting multiple tourism-related actors from the public, voluntary and business sectors (i.e. organisations, institutions and individuals). The interdependency between actors due to the nature tourism experience product, purchased as a bundle of services in a complex business environment, requires coherence and joint evaluation for elaborating new ideas into new products and services (Tremblay, 2005). Stable, mutually beneficial and synergetic relations are supported by ancillary services and external actors (such as links to educational institutions) and influenced by the local macro environment (i.e. political, technological, social and historic characteristics) within the same territory, and may lead to tourism innovations (Guia, Prats, & Comas, 2006; Hjalager, 2010b; Hjalager et al., 2008). In the classic (manufacturing based) literature, innovations tend to be developed in a ‘core’, diffuse out across space, and filter to the periphery in a hierarchical pattern to the smallest territorial unit (Raco, 1999). Diffusion is often facilitated by inter-firm cooperation, imitation, patent citation and frequent visits of proprietors to other firms (Doring & Schnellenbach, 2006; Hjalager, 2000), face-to-face contacts, negotiations with suppliers, phone calls, and talking to neighbouring firms, referred to as ‘buzz’ (Bathelt, Malmberg, & Maskell, 2004). Certain conditions enable tourism to contribute significantly to CBRs becoming knowledge hubs where tacit knowledge is encoded to explicit and diffused from the periphery to the geographic core. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND INNOVATION IN THE TOURISM SECTOR Knowledge creation is a key element in the innovation process that includes identifying knowledge resources, capturing tacit knowledge

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

195

and codifying explicit and tacit knowledge in order to prepare it for transfer within or between firms or organisations (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Knowledge management and inter-firm exchange of ideas that result in innovations are vital for firms and destinations seeking to gain and retain competitive advantage. Knowledge transfers occur within networks at both the micro-level and macro-level. At the micro-level (i.e. individual firm level) tacit knowledge is created and ‘in-house’ whereas at the macro-level (i.e. destination level) inter-organisational networks tend to transfer more explicit knowledge. In this way a process of tacit knowledge transfer from within an organisation becomes more explicit when transferred to others resulting in boosting competitiveness in a tourism destination (Cooper, 2006). Tourism innovations are rarely major breakthroughs for the entire industry but more often constitute smaller changes or improvements. These can constitute product, process, organisational/managerial and market innovations as well as more tourism-specific distribution innovations and institutional innovations (see Hjalager, 2010a). Even product development and innovation in tourism rarely involves entirely new products and/or new markets but rather differentiation, product line extension via brand policies or changes to the cost (price)/quality ratio of the product (Brackenbury, 2006; Hall & Williams, 2008). For example, new product/service innovations include new destinations, the packaging of multi-destinations, the development of new market segments, new organisational forms (e.g. vertical integration of firms), new systems and new procedures (Brackenbury, 2006). The fact that the tourism experience is often provided by a large number of intermediaries (e.g. hotels and tour operators) which are vertically integrated creates inter-firm dependency in ideation and facilitation of innovations (Hall & Williams, 2008). Barriers to knowledge transfer and innovation in the tourism industry are shaped by the fact that most businesses are small and medium size enterprises and tend to suffer from lack of resources, time, money and/or know how. The relatively large number of lifestyle entrepreneurs make tourism businesses are characterised by resistance to change, fear of technology (customers and staff), bureaucracy, traditional thinking, lethargy, and short termism and being risk averse (Carayannis & Gonzalez, 2003; Weiermain, 2006). Tourism innovations are difficult to establish and protect, since competitors are quick to follow their competitors’ new ideas (Decelles, 2006; Hall & Williams, 2008), particularly where the front stage processes are highly visible, and the level of technology is relatively unsophisticated (Hall & Williams, 2008). However, there are constraints on learning and imitation through observation, as many of these service quality innovations are dependent on tacit knowledge (Hall & Williams, 2008). Human mobility and the territoriality of collective learning, the potential role played by boundary spanners and workforce at inter-firm level and in international systems of knowledge and innovation in tourism remain understudied (Shaw & Williams, 2009). Cross Border Regional Innovation Systems (CBRIS) are an example of spatial settings where intense human mobilities have a significant potential

196

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

role in transferring observable knowledge and information for tourism innovation. The importance of different types of mobilities including cross border commuters, day trippers and international tourists visiting the same neighbouring border regions need to be examined in relation to their potential role as knowledge transfer agents. The latter may have a particular role in disseminating knowledge at the national and international scale. EU Policy Context In the age of globalization, one of the major trends is increasing borderlessness partly resulting from supranational agreements and alliances. In EU Cross Border Regions (CBRs), supranationalization processes blur differences between countries and create distinctive transboundary places, where internationalised social, economic and cultural activities in context of linguistic and social hybridity enable a gradual movement from one cultural norm to another (Gelbman & Timothy, 2011; Newman, 2006). These characteristics are a fertile ground for inter-cultural and international knowledge transfer in often relatively remote and rural regions between people with different perspectives, mentality, perceptions of ideas and ways of thinking. Since the 1990s, integration policies have increasingly emphasised the transformation of national borders from barriers into places of communication, opportunity, and a means to promote European cooperation. This has included regionalisation by enhancing the competitiveness of regions in relation to others by forming regional alliances and collaboration between neighbouring border regions (Eskilsson & Ho¨gdahl, 2009; Prokkola, 2007). Growth strategies of the EU aimed at increasing cohesion and competitiveness place innovation in the centre of their vision and encourage regions to develop innovation strategies through integrating with those at the national and EU levels, while taking account of regional specificities and reinforced partnerships between national, regional and local authorities (e.g. the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs and Cohesion Policy 2007–2013). Knowledge transfer and diffusion of innovation can be facilitated when supported by appropriate regional policies addressing the potential contribution of tourism to CBRIS. Current EU policies addressing service innovation, CBRs and tourism provide implicit support to the importance of the contribution of tourism to enhancing knowledge transfer and diffusion of innovation in CBRIS. Figure 1 displays the policy context and focus of this paper. It is divided into three main policy aspects: CBRs (‘A’ in the figure), lack of service innovation in the EU (B) and the tourism sector as a sub sector of the service industries (C), and illustrates how these three policy aspects are interrelated in the EU policy context. Innovation is often associated with manufacturing and high-tech specialisation, but many smaller and peripheral regions in the EU, such as CBRs, including a third of the EU population (A), may build their competitive advantage by promoting innovation in the service sector in general (B) and tourism in particu-

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

197

lar (C) (European Commission, 2010; NordRegio, 2010). This is also consistent with the call for addressing the lack of innovations in the European service industries (aspect 2, Lisbon strategy for Growth and Jobs, and the Cohesion Policy 2007–2013, European Commission, 2006b), as well as with the 5th Cohesion Report, which calls for stimulating endogenous development by providing support to areas of comparative advantage (European Commission, 2010), such as CBRs (A). A Cross Border Regions - A third of

B

C

Lack of Service Innovation in the EU

Tourism

EU population

Other service sectors Peripheral areas with a comparative advantage (European Commission, 2010)

A pioneering industry and a ‘last resort’ for peripheral regions

Cross Border Regionalization policies in peripheral areas

Cross Border Regional Innovation Systems

International human mobilities

Internationalization of knowledge

Tourism networks

Learning & knowledge transfer

Service innovations

Figure 1. The Role of Tourism in CBRIS From EU Policy Context

Tourism (C) is a pioneering industry in the process of cross-border regionalisation, understood as transforming national borderlands into tourism landscapes (Prokkola, 2007), which attract tourists for their unique cultural attributes and as a place of transit (see Timothy, 2000). Since tourism is often the staple or even ‘‘a last resort’’ for peripheral regions characterised by low population density and remoteness that impede the development of other industries, it is presented as a real opportunity in the European Commission’s rhetoric for the development of border regions (Saarinen, 2004). This is in line with the renewed Lisbon strategy, which identifies tourism as an important sector and responding to it would involve partnerships between stakeholders at EU, national, regional, and local level (European Commission, 2006a). Regionalisation processes create and recreate new regional identity narratives amongst cross border actors and knowledge bases for new tourism innovations and beyond. Cross border tourism development is related to European integration (Faby, 2006; Prokkola, 2007) and regionalisation and contributes to advancing local knowl-

198

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

edge and identification as it involves learning and exchange of knowledge, and thereby enhances destination competitiveness and the quality of the tourism product (Prokkola, 2007; Timothy, 2001). CROSS BORDER TOURISM AND INNOVATION Cross border tourism production consists of two main perspectives: borderlines as the main objects of tourist attention and tourism related to its proximity to the border. The first perspective includes tourist attractions and regions, whose major appeal stems from cross border features (or icons) including flags, highway welcome signs and customs buildings. The second refers to emerging cross border activities in response to foreign demand, created by differences between social-political systems, prices, regulations etc between neighbouring regions including shopping, gambling, prostitution, drinking, international parks and international enclaves (Timothy, 2001). While the first approach implies that border may stimulate more original and novel tourism product innovations related to border themes, the second one implies on more imitaive innovation processes drawing ideas from other cross border regions. The term cross border tourists refers to all types of human mobilities for any purpose involving international border crossing (Hampton, 2010; Timothy & Butler, 1995) and similar to the definition of ‘tourist’, ignores the problematic aspects of temporality of the visit (day-trip or one-night stay), travel purpose and distance (See Hall and Page, 2006). These aspects need to be acknowledged when studying the role of tourists in cross border knowledge transfer. In this paper, all human mobilities including day-trips for the purpose of leisure, visiting friends and relatives, retailing, leisure, pleasure and recreation, but excluding those related to migration or daily commuting, fall under the definition of cross border tourists. However, this definition while instrumental for our current purpose is also problematic and should be refined in the light of future empirical studies. Tourism in terms of tourist flow, destination choice, development planning and marketing, is influenced by international boundaries and also alters their border landscapes (Timothy, 2001). When border lines are marked on the ground by tangible objects, they influence tourism by creating barriers, modifications of the tourism landscape and tourism attractions related to symbolisms, contrasts, emotions, and historical trajectories (See Gelbman, 2008; Gelbman & Timothy, 2010; Sofield, 2006; Timothy, 1998; Timothy & Butler, 1995). Tourism is related to the material and conceptual elements that constitute borders. The tendency of each side of the border to conjure up mental images of the different countries including stereotypes of ethnic, cultural and religious characteristics can be used as knowledge resources for new tourism products. The three main attractiveness factors of cross border tourism regions include the border as a subject (e.g. geopolitical, historical, heritage), the location of the border region (natural and cultural) and the type of touristic developments that attract tourism. These factors determine

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

199

the nature of tourism innovation and the extent of knowledge transfer between cross border actors. The stories of the border enclaves in the village of Baarle between Belgium and the Netherland exemplify how the border as a subject provides the knowledge for developing new tourism product innovation (Gelbman & Timothy, 2011). The location of CBTRs can be classified by the three-fold typology according to their proximity to the borderline: distant from tourist areas, adjacent to the borderline on one side only, and areas that extend across, or meet at the borders (Matznetter, 1979), such as new joint tourism attractions in TornioHapranda (cf. Nilsson, Eskilsson, & Ek, 2010). It impacts on the extent to which actors are engaged in cross border development projects (Nilsson et al., 2010) and are exposed to information and knowledge from the neighbouring border regions. The type of existing touristic development provides the knowledge base for elaborating the potential in border related aspects for tourism innovations. TOURISM’S ROLE IN CROSS BORDER REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS Four identified dimensions shape the potential contribution of tourism related knowledge and mobilities to Cross Border Regional Innovation Systems (CBRIS). The first dimension includes similarities at the regional, sectoral and managerial levels, which influence the nature and levels of knowledge transfer and diffusion of innovation between actors. At the regional level, similarity refers to sharing natural and cultural tourism resources between adjacent border regions (Timothy, 1999), which increase the shared knowledge base between cross border actors and therefore facilitates joint tourism development. For example, the same natural landscapes between regions on the Polish and Slovak border also engendered the development of new cross border active and spa tourism products (European Commission, 2007). Many tourism knowledge transfer networks are based on marketing a similar tourism experience, such as the AlpNet, a knowledge-based platform including 51 tourism businesses and industrial organisations,which exchange experience in marketing the Alps (Pechlanera, Abfaltera, & Raichb, 2002). The sectoral level includes inter or intra sectoral knowledge transfer and determine the potential for innovation in tourism, which is characterised by a variety of sub-sectors. The industrial knowledge base approach highlights that different industries rely on different knowledge bases (e.g. synthetic, analytical and symbolic), codification possibilities, skills requirements, modes of knowledge exchange, etc, which explain sectoral differences in innovation process (Martin & Moodysson, in press). Intra-sectoral knowledge (e.g. between two hotels) refers to the importance of sharing industry-specific experience including better practices. Inter-sectoral knowledge refers to relevant knowledge, accumulated in diverse sectors and sub tourism sectors along the value chain; for example, transfer of generalised knowledge of management practices and economic institutions, such as tax regimes between tour

200

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

companies and hotels, which has enhanced the potential for co-production of innovations (Williams & Shaw, 2011). Therefore, large differences between the sub-tourism sectors between neighbouring border regions are likely to result in more product innovations. A related variety (i.e. the presence of different sectors in a region), and complementarities in knowledge bases and shared competencies between neighbouring border regions engender knowledge spillovers and stimulates learning and innovation particularly via inter-sectoral relations. However, if the sectoral structures and knowledge bases are too similar (reflecting too much cognitive proximity) or characterised by unrelated variety (which implies too much cognitive distance), little can be learned from each other by cross-border interaction (Trippl, 2010). This is germane for tourism inter-firm level, where managers or employees often do not operate with the same knowledge base, utilise different technologies, inputs and demands and do not share similar beliefs, objectives and behaviours, even if they are from the same business (Sundbo et al., 2007). Inter-firm product similarity between neighbouring cross border firms can lead to competition rather than collaboration (Ioannides, Nielsen, & Billing, 2006), and dissimilarity may result in limited proximities (i.e. cognitive, functional, see Lundquist & Trippl, 2009); both impede and stimulate knowledge transfer processes. Therefore, balanced product similarities, complementarities and sectoral-related variety are necessary conditions for facilitating cross-border inter-firm knowledge transfer and spatial diffusion of innovations. Cross-border cooperation including tourism related information and data analysis sharing between Finnish and Russian actors were stimulated by complementarities between the touristic appeal of Lake Ladoga, which is based on wilderness and heritage tourism and adjacent lake Saimaa offering elements of natural tourism related to unique geological formations (Vanhama¨ki, 2008). It is probable that these product similarities and complementarities leading to collaboration were the main reason for knowledge exchange resulting in the creation of new tourism products in the field of cold-water diving. The Managerial level includes members of staff who are engaged in innovative processes as innovators and/or entrepreneurs. Similar to other sectors, differences between them in ownership, size and structure of enterprises, occupational structures, entrepreneurial culture (both of the population and of institutions within the region), local demand (e.g. disposable income), the supply of factors (Smallbone, Labrianidis, Venesaar, Welter, & Zashev, 2007), and managerial professionalism affect their innovativeness (Sundbo et al., 2007), but have never been examined for cross border tourism actors. The entrepreneurs who implement ideas are perceptive and resourceful coordinators as well as a focal point where trust amongst actors is built. The role of cross border entrepreneurs as innovators determines exchange of knowledge between actors and whether companies pursue innovation strategies and sustain their competitive position (Trippl, 2010). There is a great variety between entrepreneurs in tourism regardless of cross border conditions including their commitment to commercial

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

201

versus non-commercial goals and passive versus active players (Hall & Williams, 2008). Since most tourism businesses are small and medium size enterprises, lifestyle and autonomy oriented with little innovative activity growth and entrepreneurial orientation (Getz & Petersen, 2005; Morrison, 2006) and the emergence of a few innovators or ‘leaders’ on one side of the border can determine the motivation of entrepreneurs to exchange knowledge and join cross border tourism innovation initiatives. Therefore, tourism is distinctive because there is greater prevalence of lifestyle entrepreneurs than in most other sectors and having similar types of such entrepreneurs on both sides of the border will usually result in low levels of knowledge transfer. However, having more life style entrepreneurs on one side and more profit maximizers on the other, is also likely to result in low levels of cross border knowledge transfer, as the former are less likely to be engaged in knowledge harvesting, while the latter may not find much interest and inspirations from businesses run by the former. Mobilities, Connectivity, and Internationalisation of Knowledge Transfrontier economic relations including labour mobility, student exchanges, co-patenting and co-publications, trade relations, formal and informal networking in the field of technology and innovation, etc have been acknowledged as facilitators of knowledge linkages (Trippl, 2010), whereas the contribution of tourism cross border mobility including tourists and labour remains largely ignored in this context. The emergence of cross border destinations derives from material transboundary interdependencies, regional alliances (particularly in marketing and training of staff), and human mobility which constitute high potential for cross border knowledge transfer particularly given that learning and knowledge exchange is a defining factor in tourism networks (Morrison, Lynch, & Johns, 2004). Tourism destination development includes improvement in transport and accessibility, which enables human mobility, network and establishing linkages beyond tourism and therefore increases connectivity with external actors in the Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) (Hall & Williams, 2008; Shaw & Williams, 2004; Williams & Shaw, 2011). Tourism in Cross Border Regions (CBRs) includes short trips from one side of the border to the other, that enables them to transfer knowledge between neighbouring border regions using similar tourism resources (landscape, culture, history) and selling similar tourism products. Cross border tourists from neighbouring countries and regions share geographic and cultural similarities with the destination communities, which increase their potential contribution to providing more feasible ideas for innovations. International tourists’ interests and knowledge from their previous trips to other CBRs may be more relevant to original ideas. Tourism is influenced by political boundaries and by border-related government policies, administrative management on both sides of the border and the physical and psychological barriers created by the borders against human mobilities and interac-

202

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

tions, including the movement of people, goods and services between countries (Gelbman & Timothy, 2010; Prokkola, 2010). In the age of globalization, knowledge transfer depends on the ‘permeability of the border’ in terms of the levels of interactions and movement of actors between bordering countries, which can be functionally closed with almost no border crossing, slightly open allowing limited mobility, interdependent, where economic and social activities promote increased interaction; and integrated, where stable and permanent movement of people and goods is essentially unrestricted (Martinez, 1994). In the Dobrudzha region between Romania and Bulgaria, for example, workshops and networking events included exchanging information, know-how and experience between actors including highly qualified specialists, decision makers and professionals from both sides of the border. These have resulted in providing a more coherent and strategic tourism policy and developing new borderless integrated thematic routes. Moreover, the free movement of international tourists in the region contributed to tourism demand as well as to the diffusion of the alternative tourist products (Juganaru & Juganaru, 2012). Similarly, tourism projects take advantage of such processes in terms of product innovation such as developing new borderless trails for different modes of transport e.g. the Arctic trail and Nordic light trail (Nilsson et al., 2010). In other cases, ideological barriers or even physical barriers, such as lines of military defence are established in border regions to prevent the drift of ideas and information across boundaries (Timothy & Tosun, 2003). Face-to-face interactions in Cross Border Tourism Regions (CBTRs) include exchange of internationalised knowledge, which is useful for innovation. The distinctiveness of cross border tourism innovation may be shaped by tourist inherent mobility, internationalisation and connectivity. Internationalisation is the process of firms, becoming aware of the importance of international transactions for their future development and the process of investing in and undertaking overseas business transactions (Joenniemi & Sergunin, 2011). Successful internationalisation results in changes in firm’s performance and competitiveness, for which innovation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition (Williams & Shaw, 2011). Tourism and non-tourism firms in tourist-receiving countries gain information and knowledge from international tourists particularly on aspects such as product design and marketing to foreign consumers (Poulis & Yamin, 2009). Minimal interactions between Jordanians and Israelis due to security reasons in the Island of Peace (Gelbman & Maoz, 2012) exemplifies a barrier to potential cross border knowledge transfer, if only through imitation, site visits, where tacit knowledge is exploited for innovations. Borders are places, where usually political entities collide, economies converge and cultures blend, and they are considered one of the best laboratories for studying the globalisation process that is typical of the tourism industry (Timothy, 2006). Similar to global cities, CBTRs host people from two or more neighbouring cultures as well as tourists belonging to different cultures. The internationalisation of capital, labour, managers, entrepreneurs, and tourists shapes the scope for tour-

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

Airport Core

Country B

203

Core

Country A Cross Border Tourism Region

International movement of people with potential for knowledge transfer

Figure 2. International movement of people with potential for knowledge transfer Interregional and International Knowledge Transfer Between Actors To and From CBTR

ism innovation and the need for effective cross-border knowledge transfer (Williams & Shaw, 2011). Recent globalisation-driven government policies have aimed to increase international mobilities through border-crossing agreements, in liberalisation of trade agreements, economic cooperation, resulting in heavier flows of tourists and international tourism development (Gelbman & Timothy, 2010). Connectivity within tourism networks has been recently internationalised by both the internet and various forms of human mobilities, including flows of entrepreneurs, managers, tourism-related labour/ discovery migration and of tourists, transforming the external environment of firms (Williams & Shaw, 2011) and diffusing internationalised knowledge. Regionalisation of CBTRs inherently involves internationalisation and therefore innovation since it constitutes high levels of international mobility and cross border mobility by both international tourists, home tourists and cross border residents (Figure 2). The latter are daily ‘crossers’ and therefore have greater potential embodied knowledge that results from experiences of physical presence, embedded in specific regional context (e.g. via project work) and exploitable for innovations (Williams, 2006). Such local knowledge rather than internationalised may be more exploitable and relevant to innovation. There is a need to examine whether and to what extent levels of internationalisation, enabled by tourism, contributes to the transformation of CBTRs to an ‘innovative milieu’ and knowledge hubs where tacit knowledge is encoded to explicit and diffused from the periphery to the geographic core. This is in line with Williams and Shaw’s (2011) call to examine how innovation may originate in international supply or value chain and its spatial distribution needs to consider the distinct spatial features of CBRs in the context of a greater recognition of internationalised geographies of innovations and globalisation tendencies.

204

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

Historical, Socio-institutional and, Cultural Variation This dimension includes cultural, social and institutional types of proximity, characterised by formal institutions (laws, regulations) and informal ones (routines, conventions, habits) as well as differences in historical trajectories. These aspects influence exchange of tacit knowledge, which is propelled under conditions where actors share a common history, language, beliefs, religion, values, and identical jurisdictional order (Lundquist & Trippl, in press; Timothy, 2001). They also determine the types of tourism that develop on each side of the border (Timothy, 2001) and constitute non-tangible dimensions of relational proximity, which includes cognitive, organisational, social, institutional, cultural and technological dimensions affecting interfirm knowledge transfer (Boschma, 2005; Lundquist & Trippl, 2009). Similarities might create too much relational proximity, which is counterproductive for learning and innovative processes and large differences of linguistic, cultural, ethnic, mentality, institutional or political nature between adjoining regions can also cause impediments to cross border innovation, leaving many CBRs with unfavourable innovation environments (Koschatzky, 2000; Trippl, 2010). These impediments are related to small firms’ limited absorptive capacity (e.g. tourism businesses) and can be removed through innovation and use of external relations (Koschatzky, 2000). Tourism cross border collaboration may be used as a catalyst for integration and counter cross border dissimilarities by transforming and therefore challenging social and cultural dimensions and adding new identity narratives (Prokkola, 2007), which may bring cross border actors closer together and increase relational proximity. For example, Finnish and Russian developers dealt with many misunderstandings and differences in local traditions while developing a unique cross-border diving tourism product in its diversity and use of natural resources (Vanhama¨ki, 2008). Cross border socio-cultural dissimilarities including knowledge and historical events can induce constructive innovative tension, which synergise and stimulate mutual learning and sparks innovation (Ibert, 2010). They often represent cross border regional symbolic, cultural and built landscape, and are often engraved differently in individual memories and collective awareness between the two sides of the border (Gelbman & Timothy, 2010) and therefore provide thematic contents for new tourism products. In North and South Ireland and the Golden Triangle in South-East Asia former hostile borders were transformed into commemorative spaces emphasising the positive peaceful outcomes of historical border conflicts in the form of quasi monuments of the dark past, such as fences and guard towers (Gelbman, 2010). Innovative tension is also relevant where borders are demarcated and managed in terms of religious, cultural, national, ethnic and political dimensions and create new and/or transforming existing knowledge for developing new tourism products. Some borderlines presently or in the past constituted a focal point of hostility, conflict and restrictions of accessibility and determine tourism mobilities. Others may go through a transformation period where borders become more or

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

205

less open and accessible (or vice versa) particularly at the final or postbordering stages, such as in the Berlin wall, where new tourism products emerged at the end of the process (Gelbman & Timothy, 2010) and the emerging cross border friendship parks for symbolising peace on the former hostile borders between Finland and Russia and between Costa Rica and Panama (Gelbman, 2010). Cross border tourists are likely to bring up ideas from previous visits to other CBRs and for having a relatively higher awareness and interest in border related themes. Their special interest in comparing languages, cultures, politics and bordering history of hostile (or former hostile) countries, e.g. North and South Korea and Cyprus (Gelbman, 2008; Gelbman & Timothy, 2010; Timothy, 2006) is considered to have unexploited potential as a source of knowledge for cross border tourism innovation. In border discourse, tension between tourism providers from different countries with historical border conflicts derives from different interpretations related to historical facts and fiction (Sofield 2006), which may initially hamper cross border ideation but in the long term might as well result in creative discourse and more innovation. In many European CBRs, there are often some moderate cultural dissimilarities between neighbouring societies, which are potentially advantageous for international knowledge transfer. For example, the cross border regional history of Sweden and Finland are used as a source of knowledge for creating several festivals manifested in borderland narratives and images, such as cross-border smuggling and marriages (Prokkola, 2010). Cross-border innovation linkages remain uncommon even when regions share high potential levels for industrial integration and networking, possible due to specific socio-institutional conditions (Trippl, 2010). Recent theoretical developments in economic geography on learning regions and localised innovation fall short in the analysis of CBRs as they are not characterised by the collective learning systems or socio-cultural proximity that is assumed to be a prerequisite for localised learning systems (Lundquist & Winther, 2006). However, the contribution of some levels of similarities in culture, language, trade and ethnicity between adjacent communities engender cross-border partnerships at the local scale (Timothy & Teye, 2004) can be used for knowledge transfer mechanisms and should not be ignored. For example, ‘special interest’ events in sports, cultural and historical spheres were identified as a successful cross border new product in attracting tourism to both neighbouring border regions in Ireland and Northern Ireland and was inspired by sharing similar interests (Teague & Henderson, 2006). Governance Dimension: Innovation Policies, and Institutionalised Co-ordination Initiatives The governance dimension including knowledge transfer mechanisms, forming policies and strategies and the role of and relationships between governments and other actors are pivotal in engendering,

206

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

enabling and facilitating innovative processes. Policy decision making is often taken at the regional scale, where preconditions for knowledge creation infrastructure including labour, research institutions and organisations are addressed by different mechanisms including regional and local clusters and networks (Hall & Williams, 2008). These mechanisms enhance innovation by managing funding and facilitating face-to-face contacts between actors in Regional Innovation Systems (RIS). They also provide a platform for face-to-face contacts, receiving funding and contribute to increasing knowledge spillovers and mutual trust, which is relatively low in tourism as actors tend to see each other as competitors (Hjalager, 2002; Nordin & Svensson, 2005). The national and cultural differences are additional constrains to mutual trust between cross border tourism actors. Many forms of collaboration in CBTRs vary on the continuum between alienation to integration including various types of cross-border partnerships, characterised by differences in the nature and levels of cooperation and interactions between actors (See Timothy, 2000). These characteristics enhance learning and exchange of knowledge amongst tourists and managers and support the argument that higher integration encourages knowledge transfer and cross border innovation (Lundquist & Trippl, in press). The governance of transfrontier innovation can take different levels of intensity, ranging from an ‘insitu’ co-operation to the implementation of a coherent innovation strategy for CBRIS (Trippl, 2010). Collaboration is particularly successful when it is informal with little central governments’ involvement and fewer bureaucratic obstacles (Timothy & Teye, 2004). The main importance of tourism networks is in complementing the internal capabilities of firms and other organisations in needs of scarce knowledge resources, in exploring new ideas, learning about the environment or willingly generating new products or process concepts, which may result in innovations (Morrison et al., 2004; Tremblay, 2005). Economic and political cross-border collaboration and regionalisation challenge the social and cultural dimensions of international borders and at the same time enable new identity narratives to be developed (Prokkola, 2007). A destination management organisation in CBTRs consists of some institutions forms of governance mechanisms, which may institutionalise cross border innovative and learning processes (Eskilsson & Ho¨gdahl, 2009; Timothy, 2000) through a transformation of social and cultural dimensions by adding new identity narratives (Prokkola, 2007). For example, in the cross border tourism destination project, ‘‘Destination Arctic Circle’’, located on the Finnish-Swedish border, cultural documents and artefacts are understood as cultural resources and being produced for tourism. The involvement of mainly national, regional and sometimes international governments and political systems in CBRs and limited funding often create complexity in influential factors such as the mode of state intervention, role of policy agents and levels of stakeholders and public participation in decision making processes (Trippl, 2010), which may inhibit innovative processes. Some cross border initiatives are externally funded (e.g. EU funded

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

207

projects), stand-alone projects, disconnected from local policies and programmes, and often close at the end of their funding period because of not being part of mainstream policy programmes, i.e. failed to generate sustainable funding sources of their own, or to convince the partners to fund the partnership after the end of the funding. For example, a cross border tourism development project between North and South Ireland involved the development of a comprehensive cross border cycle route but had no budget for marketing, which limited the scope and potential of that new product development (Teague & Henderson, 2006). CONCLUSIONS This paper provided a conceptual framework for studying the potential contribution of tourism to knowledge transfer and innovation in Cross Border Innovation Systems (CBRIS) and examined how the nature of borders and bordering processes contribute to tourism innovation. It identified the dimensions which shape and enhance cross border tourism innovation and knowledge transfer between actors, and explored the potential contribution of tourism to CBRIS in the context of European integration and cohesion policies. The paper suggests that tourism, as an enabler and a contributor to knowledge transfer and innovation in Cross Border Regions (CBRs), should be given more attention by scholars, managers and policy makers for the following reasons. Firstly, tourism, like any other service sectoral innovation system within a cross border region, is a source of innovation and has several identified determinants and barriers, which have been discussed in this article. Secondly, some of these determinants are shaped by cross border conditions and influence learning processes, including networks, trust between actors, resources for product development, sub-sectoral variety, entrepreneurial culture, and mobilities characterised by temporary face-to-face interactions between people from a wide range of cultures and backgrounds. Thirdly, the types of borders, bordering and Cross Border Tourism Regions (CBTRs) influence the nature of knowledge transfer and innovation. The paper identifies four key dimensions of the role of tourism in CBRIS: similarities at the regional, sectoral and managerial levels; mobilities, connectivity and internationalisation of knowledge; historical, socio-institutional and cultural variation and the governance dimension. Similarities in tourism resources between neighbouring border regions (and therefore in knowledge base between actors) are likely to enhance knowledge transfer (regional level). Cross border inter-sectoral variety between sub tourism sectors and product complementarities between businesses in neighbouring border regions are likely to enhance product innovations (sectoral level). Differences in entrepreneurial culture between tourism managers/owners from neighbouring border regions in terms of lifestyle orientation versus profit maximizers and passive versus active players (managerial level) are likely to influence the level of cross border knowledge transfer.

208

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

Tourism mobilities and their role as enablers of other mobilities and therefore in disseminating knowledge and innovations in CBRIS includes three factors. First, they are often a catalyst for the development of better infrastructure (e.g. public transport), which facilitates interregional and international human mobilities and connectivity between knowledge receivers and providers. Second, cross border tourists facilitate diffusion of tourism innovations which are visible and more easily imitated than those in most other sectors. Third, similar to global cities, the temporary face-to-face interactions between different types of residents and tourists may result in more internationalised knowledge than in other non-cross-border tourism destinations. Fourth, some cross border tourists tend to have a special interest and knowledge of cultural, political and social differences, and their potentially significant contribution to innovation as knowledge transfer agents and idea-makers travelling to other CBRs remains largely ignored. Differences in the perceived historical trajectories, and cultural and socioinstitutional variations often facilitate productive innovative tension between cross border actors, which has an enabling role as a source of ideas for tourism innovations. The governance dimension including collaborative mechanisms is characterized by relatively low levels of mutual trust between tourism actors, which are also influenced by further cross border cultural and national differences. This factor is even more acute in tourism, which is often purchased as a bundle of services and requires coherence and joint evaluation for elaborating new ideas into innovations in tourism experiences. Therefore, tourism networks, where learning and knowledge exchange is a defining factor, are pivotal in facilitating tourism cross border learning and innovation. They also include cross border joint destination marketing, which often transforms social and cultural dimensions into new local knowledge by adding new identity narratives, that contributes to advancing local knowledge for cross border tourism innovation. Border areas are a material and conceptual/mental signifier of differentiation, where nature, cultures and politics meet and often create contested and dynamic relationships (Sofield, 2006). The type of border development (tangible, intangible) and the attractiveness factors of CBTRs, including the border as a subject, location and type of touristic development, shape the type of tourism innovation (product or process, radical or incremental) and the extent of knowledge transfer between actors. Bordering themes constitute potential knowledge and stimuli for original tourism product innovations compared to emerging activities in response to cross border differences (e.g. shopping), which tend to result in more incremental innovations. Other factors, including cross border tourism integration and permeability in terms of the levels of interactions and movement of actors between bordering countries, enhance tourism knowledge transfer and innovation. This paper suggests some policy implications for realising the potential contribution of tourism to CBRIS in general and those in internal EU borders in particular. First, managers and entrepreneurs should consider the type of borders, bordering processes and the cross border differences in their historical trajectories, the scale of the border

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

209

regions and their attractiveness factors when considering elaborating new ideas for new tourism innovations. Second, financial and professional support should focus on cross border tourism collaborative mechanisms and networks, which provide the setting and stimulate innovative processes in tourism by focusing on creating new regional narratives and knowledge sources for tourism innovations and building mutual trust between actors. Third, a priority should be given to enhancing knowledge transfer between actors from neighbouring border regions with similarities in tourism resources (physical, cultural), and to businesses from the same tourism sub-sector, which have more potential for product innovations. Fourth, differences in the entrepreneurial culture of managers/owners should be understood prior to their participation in tourism cross border innovative initiatives. Tourism in CBRs should be given a priority given its role as an enabler and facilitator of cross border mobilities, which contributes to facilitating transboundary knowledge transfer and diffusion of innovation amongst international actors in CBRIS. The special interest and knowledge of tourists to CBRs in general and that from visiting other CBRs in particular should be exploited for developing new tourism products. In the age of globalization supranational processes enable a dynamic process of opening borders, which provides new knowledge for the development of new cross border tourism product innovation, such as in the EU. Many smaller and peripheral European regions are likely to build their competitive advantage by promoting innovation in the public service sector and tourism. Stimulating endogenous development by providing support to peripheral areas of comparative advantage, such as CBRs, and the call for addressing the lack of innovations in the European service industries have been advocated by various EU policy reports, which identify tourism as an important sector. Tourism as a service industry is distinct in being linked to specific localities where production and consumption take place simultaneously and depend on the geographic attributes of the place and the region to a greater extent than in most other sectors. The potential role of the tourism sector in enhancing regional knowledge and promoting cohesion and competitiveness in CBRs in general, and in European CBRs and beyond, remain to be empirically tested in further studies, which can play a key role in informing European policy makers and EU cross border funded initiatives. In conclusion, this paper has highlighted issues that policy makers need to engage with in order to realise the potential contribution of tourism to CBRIS. It is, however, limited for being based on a small number of case studies which were aimed at exploring cross border collaboration rather than the role of tourism in facilitating knowledge transfer. Further empirical studies are required to support the largely conceptual arguments in this paper and to improve our understanding of the role of tourism in enhancing cross border regional knowledge transfer and innovation.

210

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

Acknowledgements—This paper is a part of a project funded by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme (Grant Agreement PIEF-GA-2009-254516-KTIECBR). The author would like to express his gratitude to Prof Allan M Williams and Prof Peter Bjo¨rk for their useful comments on a previous version of this paper. Thanks go also to Dr. Katharina Scho¨ps for sharing her experience and information on Tourismpartners project.

REFERENCES Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2006). Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 163–173. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 31–56. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74. Brackenbury, M. (2006). Has innovation become a routine practice that enables companies to stay ahead of the competition in the travel industry?. In Innovation and tourism policy (pp. 71–83). OECD Publishing. Carayannis, E. G., & Gonzalez, E. (2003). Creativity and innovation = competitiveness? When, how and why. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 587–605). Oxford: Elsevier. Cooke, P., Oranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475–491. Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 47–64. Decelles, X. (2006). A dynamic conceptual approch to innovation in tourism. In OECD (Ed.), Innovation and growth in tourism (pp. 85–105). Paris: OECD. Doring, T., & Schnellenbach, J. (2006). What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth?. Regional Studies, 40, 375–395. Eskilsson, L., & Ho¨gdahl, E. (2009). Cultural heritage across borders? – Framing and challenging the Snapphane story in southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9, 65–80. European Commission (2010). Regional policy—Inforegio, inforegio-newsroom, new European platform for cross-border cooperation. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from Commission of the European Communities Web site: . European Commission (2006a). Communication from the Commission—A renewed EU tourism policy: Towards a stronger partnership for European Tourism. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from Commission of the European Communities Web site: . Commission, European. (2006). Cohesion Policy in support of growth and jobsCommunity Strategic Guidelines, Retrieved February 7, 2013, from EUROPA, Summaries of EU Legislation, Employment and Social Policy, Job Creation Measures Web site:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/job_creation_measures/g24230_en.htm. European Commission (2007). ‘‘TourismPartners Europe’’—Development of European cross-border tourist destinations. INTERREG IIIC East zone project 2004–2007, Best practice report draft. Faby, H. (2006). Tourism policy tools applied by the European Union to support cross-bordered tourism. In H. Wachowiak (Ed.), Tourism and borders: contemporary issues, policies, and international research (pp. 19–30). UK Ashgate: Aldershot. Gelbman, A. (2008). Border tourism in Israel: Conflict, peace, fear and hope. Tourism Geographies, 10(2), 193–213.

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

211

Gelbman, A., & Maoz, D. (2012). Island of peace or island of war: Tourist guiding. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 108–133. Gelbman, A. (2010). Border tourism attractions as a space of presenting and symbolizing peace. In O. Moufakkir & I. Kelly (Eds.), Tourism, progrees and peace (pp. 83–98). Wallingford, UK: CABI. Gelbman, A., & Timothy, D. J. (2010). From hostile boundaries to tourist attractions. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(3), 239–259. Gelbman, A., & Timothy, D. J. (2011). Border complexity, tourism and international enclaves – A case study. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 110–131. Getz, D., & Petersen, T. (2005). Growth and profit-oriented entrepreneurship among family business owners in the tourism and hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24, 219–242. Guia, J., Prats, L., & Comas, J. (2006). The destination as a local system of innovation: The role of relational networks. In L. Lazzeretti & C. S. Petrillo (Eds.), Tourism local systems and networking (pp. 57–66). Kidlington, UK: Elsevier Ltd. Hall, C. M., & Page, S. J. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: environment, place and space (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Hall, M. C., & Williams, A. M. (2008). Tourism and innovation. London: Routledge. Hampton, M. P. (2010). Enclaves and ethnic ties: The local impacts of Singaporean cross-border tourism in Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 31, 239–253. Hansen, N. M. (1981). The border economy: regional development in the Southwest. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hjalager, A. M. (2000). Tourism destinations and the concept of industrial districts. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2, 199–213. Hjalager, A. M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23(5), 465–474. Hjalager, A. M. (2010a). Progress in tourism management – A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism management, 31, 1–12. Hjalager, A. M. (2010b). Regional innovation systems: The case of Angling tourism. Tourism Geographies, 12, 192–216. ¨. Hjalager, A. M., Huijbens, E. H., Bjo¨rk, P., Nordin, S., Flagestad, A., & Knu´tsson, O (2008). Innovation systems in Nordic tourism. In Advance/1, Icelandic Tourism Research Centre, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, European Tourism Research Institute, Norwegian School of Management BI. Ibert, O. (2010). Relational distance. sociocultural and time – Spatial tensions in innovation practices. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 187–204. Ioannides, D., Nielsen, P. A˚., & Billing, P. (2006). Transboundary collaboration in tourism: the case of the Bothnian Arc. Tourism Geographies, 8, 122–142. Joenniemi, P., & Sergunin, A. (2011). When two aspire to become one: Citytwinning in Northern Europe. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 26(2), 231–242. Juganaru, M., & Juganaru, I. D. (2012). Creation of Cross-Border Tourist Products Practice Aimed at Building-Up Tourism in Dobrudzha Region. Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, XII (1)(1), 81–86. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Masters. London, UK: Unwin. Koschatzky, K. (2000). A River is a river – Cross border networking between Baden and Alsace. European Planning Studies, 8, 429–449. Lundquist, K.J. and Trippl, M. (2009) Towards cross-border innovation spaces. A ¨ resund region and the theoretical analysis and empirical comparison of the O Centrope area. SRE - Discussion Papers, 2009/05. Institut fu¨r Regional- und Umweltwirtschaft, WU, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna. Lundquist, K.-J., & Trippl, M. (in press). Distance, proximity and types of crossborder innovation systems: A conceptual analysis. Regional Studies. Lundquist, K.-J., & Winther, L. (2006). The interspace between Denmark and ¨ resund cross-border region. Sweden: The industrial dynamics of the O Geografisk Tidsskrift, Danish, Journal of Geography, 106(1), 115–129. Martin, R., & Moodysson, J. (in press). Comparing knowledge bases: On the geography and organisation of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies.

212

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

Martinez, O. (1994). The dynamics of border interaction: New approaches to border analysis. In C. H. Schofield (Ed.), World boundaries. Global boundaries (Vol. 1, pp. 1–15). London: Routledge. Maskell, P., & Tornqvist, G. (1999). Building a cross-border learning region. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Matznetter, J. (1979). Border and tourism: Fundamental relations. In G. Gruber, H. Lamping, W. Lutz, J. Matznetter, & K. Vorlaufer (Eds.), Tourism and borders: Proceedings of the meeting of the IGU working group—Geography of tourism and recreation (pp. 61–73). Frankfurt, Germany: Institut fu¨r Wirtschafts und Sozialgeographie der Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universita¨t. Morrison, A. (2006). A contextualisation of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 12, 192–209. Morrison, A., Lynch, P., & Johns, N. (2004). International tourism networks. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16, 197–202. Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our ‘borderless’ world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143–161. Nilsson, J. H., Eskilsson, L., & Ek, R. (2010). Creating cross-border destinations: INTERREG programmes and regionalisation in the Baltic sea area. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10, 153–172. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How the Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Nordic Centre for Spatial Development (Nordregio) (2010). Innovations and regions prosperity. Retrieved June 28, 2012, Retrieved from Nordregio Web site: . Nordin, S., & Svensson, B. (2005). The significance of governance in innovative tourism destinations. Oestersund, Sweden: European Tourism Research Institute, MidSweden University. Pechlanera, H., Abfaltera, D., & Raichb, F. (2002). Cross-border destination management systems in the Alpine region-the role of knowledge networks on the example of AlpNet. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 3(3 & 4), 89–107. Pinto, H., & Guerreiro, J. (2010). Innovation regional planning and latent dimensions: The case of the Algarve region. Annals of Regional Science, 44, 315–329. Poulis, K., & Yamin, M. (2009). Tourism as a leverage of internationalisation for consumer goods firms: A case study approach. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 69–85). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Prokkola, E. (2007). Cross-border regionalisation and tourism development at the Swedish-Finnish border: ‘‘Destination Arctic Circle’’. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7, 120–138. Prokkola, E. (2010). Borders in tourism: the transformation of the Swedish-Finnish border landscape. Current Issues in Tourism, 13, 223–238. Raco, M. (1999). Competition, collaboration and the new industrial districts: Examining the institutional turn in local economic development. Urban Studies, 36, 951–968. Saarinen, J. (2004). Destinations in change: The transformation process of tourist destinations. Tourist Studies, 4, 161–179. Shaw, G., & Williams, A. (2004). Tourism and tourism spaces. London: Sage. Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (2009). Knowledge transfer and management in tourism organisations: An emerging research agenda. Tourism Management, 30, 325–335. Smallbone, D., Labrianidis, L., Venesaar, U., Welter, F., & Zashev, P. (2007). Challenges and prospects of cross border cooperation in teh context of EU enalrgement In 6th Framework programme Priority 7 citizens and governance in a knoowledge based society (Vol. Deliverable 7: State of the art literature review). Kingston: Kingston University. Sofield, T. H. B. (2006). Border tourism and border communities: An overview. Tourism Geographies, 8(2), 102–121.

A. Weidenfeld / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 191–213

213

Sundbo, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., & Sørensen, F. (2007). The innovative behaviour of tourism firms—Comparative studies of Denmark and Spain. Research Policy, 36, 88–106. Tangkjær, C., & Jonsson, O. (2005). Cross Border Regions as involutionary spaces. Paper presented at Inaugural Nordic Geographers Meeting, Sweden:Lund. Teague, P., & Henderson, J. (2006). The Belfast agreement and cross-border economic cooperation in the tourism industry. Regional Studies, 40, 1083–1096. Timothy, D. J. (1998). Collecting places: Geodetic lines in tourist space. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 123–129. Timothy, D. J. (1999). Cross-border partnership in tourism resource management: International parks along the US-Canada Border. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3–4), 182–205. Timothy, D. J. (2001). Tourism and political boundaries. New York: Routledge. Timothy, D. J. (2000). Cross-border partnerships in tourism resource management: International parks along the US-Canada border. In B. Bramwell & B. Lane (Eds.), Tourism collaboration and partnerships (pp. 20–43). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications. Timothy, D. J., & Butler, R. W. (1995). Cross-border shopping. A North American perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 16–34. Timothy, D. J., & Teye, V. B. (2004). Political boundaries and regional cooperation in tourism. In A. Lew, C. H. Michael, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 584–595). Malden, Mass: Oxford Blackwell. Timothy, D. J., & Tosun, C. (2003). Tourist perception of the Canada–USA border as a barrier to tourism at the international peace garden. Tourism Management, 24, 411–421. Timothy, D. J. (2006). Relationships between tourism and international boundaries. In H. Wachowiak (Ed.), Tourism and borders: contemporary issues, policies, and international research (pp. 9–18). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Tremblay, P. (2005). Learning networks and tourism innovation in the top end. In D. Carson & J. Macbeth (Eds.), Regional tourism cases – Innovation in regional tourism (pp. 53–60). Altona, Victoria, Australia: Common Ground. Trippl, M. (2010). Developing cross-border regional innovation systems: key actors and challenges. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101, 150–160. Vanhama¨ki, I. (2008). Cross-border cooperation in the development of history based tourism products - A case of diving tours at lake Saimaa and lake Ladoga. In Lindroth, Kaija & Mari Voutilainen (Eds.), Competition in Tourism: Business and Destination Perspectives. Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Europe, 2008 Annual Conference in Helsinki, Finland. TTRA Europe Chapter, Borla¨nge. Weiermain, K. (2006). Product improvement or innovation: what is the key to success in tourism. In OECD (Ed.), Innovation and growth in tourism (pp. 53–69). Paris: OECD. Williams, A. M. (2006). Lost in translation? International migration, learning and knowledge. Progress in Human Geography, 30, 588–607. Williams, A. M., & Shaw, G. (2011). Intenationalization and innovation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 27–51. Submitted 3rd July 2012. Final Version 23th December 2012. Accepted 8th January 2013. Refereed Anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Noga Collins-Kreiner