View
16
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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.
Recommended