TheMunicipalityofSlagelseAninsightintotourismcollaborationinamunicipality
FinalMasterThesis
MasterprograminTourism
AAU-CPH
10thSemester
Supervisor:MartinTrandbergJensen
Authors:SørenBilleEriksen&ChristofferFahlmannKarlsen
Picture1EditedfromTheMunicipalityofSlagelse'slogo(Slagelse.dk30/5-2017)
2
Abstract
Theaimofthisstudywastoexploretheunderstandinganduseoftheterm‘tourismcollaboration’
amonglocalgovernment,LTOsandtourismactorsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.Thetermisoften
usedwhentourismstrategiesatdifferentlevelsarebeingwritten,anditisalsoakeywordinthe
latestcoastalandnaturetourismstrategyinthemunicipality.
By assuming a social constructivist approach, the qualitative data for this research has been
collected throughanobservation studyof a tourismworkshopand semi-constructed interviews
withtourismactorsandkeypersonsfromLTOsandthelocalgovernment.
The findings show that the term ‘tourism collaboration’ is understood and used in significantly
differentways,dependingonwhoisasked.
Ithasbeenfoundthatthelackofcollaborationandcoordinationbetweenthelocalgovernment,
VisitVestjællandand local tourismassociations ishighly influencingthe local tourismactors,and
theirabilitytocollaborate.Thedifferenceintheoveralldestinationlong-termobjectives,andthe
localactors’short-terminterestshasproventocomplicatecollaborationbetweenthedestination
tourismdevelopmentorganisations,andthelocaltourismassociations.Thelackofajointtourism
strategy,andthelackofcoordinationinthedestinationlevel,hascausedthelocaltourismactors
tolosetrustintheorganisationsabilitytocreatecollaborations.
Power relations,bothstructuraland individual,playsan important role in thedevelopmentand
implementation of collaborations between actors. Especially it is relevant in relation to the old
disbanded municipalities of Skelskør, Korsør and Slagelse who with their local anchoring have
different approaches to tourism collaboration. The findings in this thesis contributes to the
theoretical fields within tourism network and power relations theory and opens up for an
unexploredfieldofmunicipaltourismresearchinDenmark.
3
TableofContents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................5Problemformulation.........................................................................................................................................7Subjectfield.......................................................................................................................................................8
Methodology........................................................................................................................................10OntologicalandEpistemologicalconsiderations.............................................................................................10
Socialconstructivismandinterpretivisminthisthesis................................................................................11Participantobservation...................................................................................................................................12
Choiceofobservationstudy–tourismworkshop.......................................................................................13Overtorcovertroles?..................................................................................................................................14Takingnotesandanalysingparticipantobservations.................................................................................15
Interviews........................................................................................................................................................16Choosinginterviewees................................................................................................................................16Interviewdesign..........................................................................................................................................18Theinterviewees.........................................................................................................................................18
Validityoftheresearchandlimitations..........................................................................................................21Ethicalconsiderations.....................................................................................................................................22
Theoreticalconsiderations...................................................................................................................23Stakeholdertheory..........................................................................................................................................23
Howwestudyactor-networks....................................................................................................................24Researchingnetworks.................................................................................................................................24
Collaborationsinatourismdestination..........................................................................................................26Public/privaterelations...............................................................................................................................27Collaborationamongstakeholders.............................................................................................................28
Localgovernmentpolicyandplanning............................................................................................................32Policyinstrumentstofacilitatecollaboration.............................................................................................35DestinationpartnershipandDestinationteam-building............................................................................36
Powerrelations...............................................................................................................................................38
Analysis.................................................................................................................................................44Theapproachtotourismcollaborationfromnationalleveltolocallevel......................................................44
TheDanishGovernment’stourismstrategy................................................................................................45KL–LocalGovernmentDenmark................................................................................................................47ThelocalgovernmentofSlagelse...............................................................................................................49TourismassociationswithinthedestinationofSlagelse.............................................................................52Subconclusion–Officialtourismstrategiesfromthenationleveltothelocallevel..................................53
Thetourismdepartment’sapproachtoencouragetourismcollaboration....................................................56Workshop–Observationstudy...................................................................................................................56Outcomesoftheworkshop.........................................................................................................................63Tourismstakeholdernetwork.....................................................................................................................66
Collaborationinthelocaltourismactorlevel.................................................................................................71Networkscreatedbydestinationteambuilding.........................................................................................72Networkscreatedbythetourismactorsthemselves..................................................................................77
Theoldmunicipalityborders–localtourismnetworks..................................................................................78Skælskør......................................................................................................................................................79Bisserup.......................................................................................................................................................80Korsør..........................................................................................................................................................82
4
Slagelse.......................................................................................................................................................84Collaborationbetweenthefourcities.........................................................................................................86
Powerrelationsamongactors,LTOsandDMOs.............................................................................................88RelationsbetweenlocalgovernmentandtheLTO’s...................................................................................90Individualpowerrelations...........................................................................................................................93
StateofcollaborationinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.....................................................................................94
Discussion.............................................................................................................................................96Thegeneralconfusion–Theneedforaclearleader/DMO............................................................................97
Acleardefinitionofroledistributionbetweentourismassociations,VisitVestsjællandandthetourismdepartment.................................................................................................................................................99
Recognitionoflong-termdestinationstrategies,andshort-termlocalinterests.........................................101Localanchoringintheoldmunicipalities,andindividualpowerrelations...................................................103
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................106
Literature............................................................................................................................................108Websites........................................................................................................................................................112
5
Introduction
Collaborationsintourismdestinationshasbymanyscholars(JamalandGetz,1995;Morrison,2013;
JamalandStronza,2009;LankfordandHoward,1994)beendescribedasanimportantelementof
tourismdevelopment.Therehasbeenaspecificfocusontheinvolvementoftourismactorsfrom
the local leveltotheoveralldestination levelandall thewayuptothenational level.However,
therehasbeena“[…]lackofacriticalmassofempiricalworkoncollaborationinthedestination
context.”(Fyall,GarrodandWang,2012:11),andtheintentionofthisthesisistocontributetothe
understandingofcollaborationsbetweenactorsintourismdestinations.
Back in 2011, the local government of Slagelse took the first steps towards a new tourism
development in thearea,byoutsourcing three specificworkareas toVisitVestsjælland: tourism
marketing,tourismproductdevelopmentandnetworkingamongtourismactors.VisitVestsjælland
isalocalgovernmentfundedorganisation,whichisoperatingasasubsidiaryofVisitDenmark.Also,
apartofVisitVestsjælland,arethetwoneighbouringmunicipalitiesKalundborgandSorø,which
meansthatitiscoveringaratherlargeareaofwesternZealand.
TheMunicipalityofSlagelseisrichoncoastlinewithabout180kilometresofbeautifulnaturealong
the coast, and small islands in the south. In 2017, the development department at the local
governmentofSlagelse,createdareport,TourismPolicyConsiderations(appendixM),thatoutlines
whatshouldbeprioritisedoverthenextfouryears.Oneofthemaininitiatives,athree-yearproject
namedcoastalandnaturetourism,isplacinggreatemphasisoncreatinganddevelopingsynergy
and interactionbetween tourismactors that areworkingwithin the field of coastal andnature
tourism.
“The project will run over a three-year period, where the goal is to create
interconnectionanddevelopmentacrossthetourismactorsandactivitiesthatshould
end up in bookable experiences that can be easily communicated to the potential
tourists.”
(AppendixM,TourismPolicyConsiderations,2017:8)
6
The vision is to establish better andmore productive collaborations and partnerships between
tourism actors, but equally as important is to create a stronger relationship between the local
tourismorganisations(LTO’s)(Dredge,2006:p270),andtheprivatetourismactors.
“Theintentionistoinvolvelarger,aswellassmallertourismactors,andhelptobring
coherencetothetourismindustry.ArelationshipwhichisreflectedinthewaySlagelse
marketedasanactiveandscenictourismdestination.”
(Appendix M, Tourism Policy Considerations, 2017: 8)
Asseenabove,thesewell-meaninginitiativesfromthelocalgovernmentaremeanttobeinvolving
tourismactorsofall sizes.TheTourismPolicyConsiderations-report,with itscoastalandnature
projectisaprojectthatinvolvesthewholedestinationofSlagelse,amunicipalitythatbeforethe
mergingofmunicipalitiesin2007,werethreeseparatemunicipalities.
Oneoftheresearchersofthisthesis,Christoffer,hassincethesummerof2016beenworkingpart-
timeinthetourismdepartmentofthelocalgovernmentinSlagelse.Throughthisjob,hehasbeen
involvedwiththedevelopmentoftourismcollaborationsinthemunicipalityandhaslearnedthat
previouscollaborationinitiativesoftenhavequicklybeenshelved.
This thesiswill, based on themunicipality of Slagelse as a destination, try to contribute to the
understanding of tourism collaborations, the development of these and the challenges and
implications thatmaybe in it. By empirical data collected throughqualitative semi-constructed
interviewswithbothpublicandprivateactorsandanobservationstudy,thisresearchwillseekto
gainamorecomprehensiveunderstandingoftourismcollaborationsinaDanishmunicipality.We
finditinterestingtoinvestigateuponhowthesesmallercoastalandnaturetourismactorsperceive
theirrolesandinfluenceinthebiggertourismpictureofSlagelsemunicipality.Maybebylistening
tothetourismactorsandtheLTO’s,wecangetanunderstandingofwhyearlierinitiativeshavenot
beensuccessful,andhowthelocalgovernmentcanensurethatallactorsarecollaboratingtowards
acoherenttourismstrategy.
7
Problemformulation
As explained in the introduction, the aim of this thesis is to gain an understanding of tourism
collaborationsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.Asseenintheforthcomingcoastalandnaturetourism
strategyinthemunicipalityandgenerallyinstrategiesfromnationaltolocaldestinationlevelthe
term collaboration is a keyword in political discourses around tourism planning and tourism
development.Withtheaboveasastartingpoint,thisresearchwillseektoanswerthefollowing
question:
How is the term ‘tourism collaboration’ understood, used and implemented by the local
governmentandtourismactorsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse?
Withthisproblemformulation,thisthesisseekstounderstandhowthetermtourismcollaboration
is understood andusedbypublic andprivate actors and thepossible challenges that liewithin
developingthisinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.Tohelpanswerthisoverallproblemformulation,this
thesiswillseektoanswerthefollowingsub-questions:
• Isthereacommonthreadintourismstrategiesfromanationalleveldowntothemunicipal
level,inrelationtocollaborationandpartnerships?
• Doesthemergingofthemunicipalitiesin2007influencetheunderstandinganddevelopment
oftourismcollaborationsinthecurrentmunicipality?
• Howdopowerrelationsbetweenorganisationsandindividualsinthemunicipalityaffectthe
understandinganddevelopmentoftourismcollaborations?
8
Subjectfield
In the following section, a brief geographic and demographic description of themunicipality of
Slagelsewillbepresentedtothereader,followedbyalookatthestructureoftheleadingtourism
stakeholdersandactorswithinthemunicipality,
TheMunicipalityofSlagelseislocatedonthewestsideofZealand,Denmark,andisthe16thlargest
populatedmunicipalityinDenmarkwithapopulationofapproximately80.000inhabitants.Thecity
ofSlagelseisthelargestcity,andit iswherethelocalgovernmentofSlagelseis located.Korsør,
SkælskørandSlagelsearethethreecitieswithinthepresentmunicipalityborder,whobothusedto
beseparatemunicipalitiesbeforethemergingofthemin2007.
The 180-kilometre coastal line can be seen as an attraction in itself, for tourist seeking active
activities in thenature,orarelaxingvacation.Alongthecoast there is largerareaswithholiday
cottages,whicharethemostusedaccommodationinthedestinationofSlagelse.
VisitVestsjælland,thetourismmarketingorganisation,hasmarketedtheareaasSjællandsVestkyst
(Zealand’sWestCoast)asareferencetotheDanishwestcoastinJutland.Thereasonisthatthe
coastisasbeautifulasJutland’swestcoast,butismuchmoreprotectedandthereforemoresafe
andfamilyfriendly.
InthesouthwestareaofthemunicipalityclosetothecityofSkælskør,aretheretwoislandsnotfar
fromthemainland,AgersøandOmø.Theseislandsareattractionsinthemselves,duetothespecial
islandcommunityandatmosphere.Theyareonlyashortferryrideaway,andhavedifferentkinds
of accommodations for tourists. The area in the south, from Skælskør to the border in to the
municipalityofNæstved,isquiteruralwithlowpopulationdensity.
The local government in Slagelse outsourcedmost tourism developmentwork, by creating the
before mentioned VisitVestsjælland. VisitVestsjælland is a cooperation between the three
municipalitiesofSlagelse,KalundborgandSorø,whicheachsupportVisitVestsjællandfinancially.
TheagreementbetweenthethreemunicipalitiesandVisitVestsjællandisthatVisitVestsjællanddo
tourismproductdevelopment,marketingandfacilitatenetworkingbetweentourismactors.
9
Within the local government of Slagelse there is not a specific tourism department, but the
responsibilitylieswithinthedepartmentofCultureandLeisure.Buttosimplifyit,theanalysiswill
refertoitasthetourismdepartment,whentourismprojectsatthemunicipalitylevelisdiscussed,
sinceitcanbearguedthatthereisatourismdepartmentwithintheCultureandLeisuredepartment.
Inthespringof2016,thelocalgovernmentofSlagelsebeganatourismproject,wherethevisionis
to strengthen the costal andnature tourismat thedestination. To get anunderstandingof the
resourcesbeingappliedtothistourismproject,itisworthmentioningthatthereisbudgetedwith
75%ofonefulltimeemployeetoworkwiththestrategy.
10
Methodology
Thepurposeofthischapter isto introducethereadertothemethodologicalconsiderationsand
approachesthatunderlietheresearchconductedinthisthesis.Tobeginwith,areviewofthethesis’
ontologicalandepistemologicalstandpointswillbepresentedandwhatisperceivedasrealityin
thispresentresearch.Secondly,anexaminationontheuseofhermeneuticsanditsrelevancyto
understandingthefindingsanddatacollectedinthisresearchispresentedtothereader.Thelast
parts of the chapter are concerning the approaches taken in relation to the qualitative data
collection–whichincludesareviewofthemethodologyusedinconductingqualitativeinterviews
and the choice of respondents and an explanation of the approaches taken during observation
studies.
OntologicalandEpistemologicalconsiderations
Thispartofthechapterwillclarifyandpresenttothereadertheontologicalandepistemological
approacheswhichtheresearchinthisthesisisbasedon.
Thetermontologyisdealingwithhowweperceivetheworldandhowwebelievethatarealityis
created.Inontology,oftenbasedonspecificstreamsofsciencessuchassocialornaturalscience,
wefinddifferentapproachestotheacceptanceofrealityandtheconstructionofit.Naturalscience
researches are found to beworkingwithin the positivistic or post-positivistic fieldwhere social
realityisexternalandobjective(Wahyuni,2012),andpositivistsarein“[…]thebeliefthat‘there
existsa (knowable) truthout there,drivenby immovable laws” (Hollinshead,2006:45). In stark
contrast to themore rigid thinking of positivism,we find social constructivism,which perceive
realityandtheconstructionofitinasignificantlydifferentway.Theconstructivistapproachbelieve
thatrealityisconstructedbyrelationsbetweensocialactorsand“[…]theyrecognizethatindividuals
with their own varied backgrounds, assumptions and experiences contribute to the on-going
constructionofrealityexistingintheirbroadersocialcontextthroughsocialinteraction”(Wahyuni,
2012:71).Notonlyisrealityconstructedintheinteractionbetweensocialactors,butitisalsoina
“[…]constantstateofrevision[…]”(Bryman,2012:33).Whenspeakingofrealityasconstructedby
socialactorsandrelationsbetween,itisimportanttonoticethatthisalsoverymuchincludesthe
researchesthemselveswhoareequallyasmuchapartoftherealityconstructionthanthesubjects
of the research (ibid.). Although, in recent years, there have been an increased support an
11
encouragement for the appliance of social constructivism in qualitative tourism research
(Hollinshead,2006;Dredge,2010;Wayuni,2012),thenitmustalsobenotedthattherehasbeen
criticismoftheratherfreeinterpretationofrealityfoundinconstructivism(Bryman,2012;Botterill
andPlatenkamp,2012).Socialconstructivismhasbeenaccusedofpresentingafictiverealitywhere
everything is relative and only exists because it is perceived that way (Jacobsen, 2001: 122).
However, this critique has been denounced by social researcherswho argues that the criticism
stemsfromamisunderstandingoftheconceptofsocialconstructivismandanexaggerationofits
claimeddenialofreality(Pernecky,2012).
Socialconstructivismandinterpretivisminthisthesis
Theresearchquestion(s)inthispresentthesisproposesasearchforanunderstandingoftourism
collaborationsinacomplexmunicipalityasSlagelseandthecomplicationsofcreatingsynergyin
such a rather large region.With aqualitative approach through semi-constructed interviews an
observationstudyofatourismworkshop,itisrecognizedthatrealityandmeaningisconstructedas
aninterplaybetweenthesubjectsoftheresearch.Thus,thisthesiswillbetakingtheperspectiveof
a social constructivist approach. From interactions such as interviews and observation, we are
seeking to understand the tourism actors and their opinions and assumptions. With a social
constructivistapproach,itisimportanttonotice,thattheversionofsocialrealitypresentedinthis
thesis,cannotbedefinitivebecauseitalsowillbeaconstructofour,asresearchers,ownopinions
andassumptions(Bryman,2012).Whenwe,asresearchers,attendaworkshopandobservetourism
actorsinteractwitheachotherandtheirreactionstoissuesthatarebroughtup,weareformingour
ownassumptionsandinterpretationsofasocialrealityinthemunicipality.Therebyconstructivism
“[…]addsavaluabledimensiontotourismbyallowingnewconstructionstoemerge”andithas“[…]
both a critical and a hopeful aspect because of its ability to expose and challenge prevailing
understandings”(Pernecky,2012:1132).Attimesduringtheresearchforthisthesis,theresearchers
prevailingunderstandingsofthesubjectwaschallenged.Asoneoftheresearchers,Christoffer,is
employedinaparttimejobintheorganisationthat isthelocalgovernmentforthedestination,
thereweresomepresumedperceptionsabouttourismactorsandassociations.Theseperceptions
weresometimeschallengedbecause,asresearchersinasocialconstructivistrole,weweregiven
12
theopportunity to investigate thesocial lifeof tourismactors fromadifferentperspective than
Christofferhasotherwisedone.
The epistemological considerations are evolving around what we, as researches, perceive and
approveasacceptableknowledge. Ina somewhatnaturalprolongingof theontologicalposition
takeninthisthesis,aninterpretivisticapproachwillbefollowed.Withtheepistemologicalposition
withininterpretivismwearemakingasubjectiveinterpretationofourfindingsduringobservation
andinterviews,and“[…]takinganinterpretivestancecanmeanthattheresearchermaycomeup
withsurprisingfindings,oratleastfindingsthatappearsurprising.”(Bryman,2012:31).
Participantobservation
Thissectionofthechapterintendstointroducethereadertoanobservationstudyasamethodical
approachtoqualitativeresearchinthisthesis.
Observationstudiescanbeapproachedandperformed inawidevarietyofways,andcanhave
differentpurposesinrelationtotheresearchquestionandtheaimofthestudyingeneral(Colein
Ritchie,BurnsandPalmer,2005:63).Insocialresearch,themethodofparticipantobservationis
widely considered an acceptable and usefulmethod in understanding humannature and social
interaction(Bryman,2012:431),anditistheobservationmethodappliedintheresearchforthis
thesis.Beforegoingintothepracticeofaparticipantobservationstudy,afewthingshavetobe
takenintoconsideration,especially;theroleoftheobserverandthephysicalandsocialsettingof
the study itself. In participant observation studies, there is an important distinction, between
choosingacovertoranovertrole.Asthenameimplies,thecovertroleseestheresearchernot
revealinghimselforhisintentionstotheobservedparticipants.Thebenefitsofthecovertroleare
thattheresearchergetstoobserveparticipantsintheir‘truestnature’sotospeak.Withouthaving
inthebackoftheirheadsthattheiractionsandspokenwordsareevaluatedandobservedbyathird
party, it should be assumed that they are actingmore natural andwithout outside restrictions
(ibid.).Thecovertrolehaslimitationsinthemeansthattheyoftencanonlybeconductedinpublic
spaces,whereresearchersnotbeforehandhastonegotiateaccessandthatittosomedegreelimits
theresearcher’soptionsofhonestinteractionwiththeobservedindividualsorgroups.
13
Theovertrole,incontrasttothecovert,seestheresearcherrevealingthenatureofhispresence–
oratleastrevealingittotheoneswithwhomhenegotiatesaccesstheobservedspace.Researchers
inovertroleshastheadvantageofbeingabletobehonestwiththeobserved,thustheriskofbeing
caughtinethicaldilemmaswillbedecreased.Withanovertrole,theresearcherswillalsobeable
to takenotesopenlyandmaybeevensteerconversations incertaindirectionsbeneficial to the
observations(ibid.:436)
Theuseofparticipantobservationinthisthesishasbeenconductedwithtworelativelydifferent
intentionsinmind.Firstofall,wesoughtapreliminarymethodicalexercisewherewecouldcollect
somebasisknowledgeofthetourismactorsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse:Whoarethey,andwho
are the most prominent ones? How are they geographically distributed throughout the
municipality? Secondly, the observation study was conducted with the intention of learning
somethingabouthowtourismcollaborationsarecreatedinasocialsettingandwhatcomplications
thatlieswithin.
Choiceofobservationstudy–tourismworkshop
As mentioned briefly above, one of the intentions of an observation study was to use it as a
preliminarymethodtogatherbasicknowledgeabouttourismactorsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.
ThroughChristoffer'spositionasastudentemployeeinthetourismdepartmentofthemunicipality,
webecameawareofaworkshoptobeheldfortourismactors intheregion.Theworkshopwas
initiatedwiththe intentionofcreatingnetworkrelations,presentingnewtourisminitiativesand
innovationingeneral.ItwasinitiatedandfacilitatedbyLandudviklingSlagelsewhichisalocalaction
groupworkingfordevelopmentofruralareasinthemunicipality.Theyareresponsibleforallocating
fundsfromEU’sruralareaprogramandfromthedevelopmentpoolfromthemunicipalitytonew
projects in the region. The new tourism initiatives presented at the workshop were projects
developedwithhelpfromthesefunds,anditwasalsoindentedtoworkasaformofmotivatorfor
theothertourismactors,byshowingthemwhatcanbeachievedwithfundingfromLandudvikling
Slagelse. Following the project presentations, the actors was divided into groups that rotated
betweenfiveinnovationstands,eachwithadifferenttourismthemefortheregion,wheresome
interestingdiscussionsandissuesemerged.
14
Aninvitationwassentouttotourismactorsinthemunicipality,butitwasfurthermorestatedinthe
invitationthatactorsnotdirectlyinvolvedintourism,werealsowelcome.Theactorscouldsignup
fortheworkshopafteraprincipleoffirstcomefirstserved.Thefactthatitwasnotmandatoryfor
actorstoattend,madeitinterestingforusbecauseitcouldtellsomethingaboutwhatareasofthe
municipalityhasthemostinterestintourismdevelopment–whowerethere?And,perhapseven
moreinterestingly,whowerenotthere?
Overtorcovertroles?
Foraresearcherwiththeintentionofdoinganobservationstudy,gainingaccesstoaclosedorsemi-
closedsettingcanbeachallenge,and it canoften requirequiteabitofperseverance fromthe
inquiring part (ibid.). The tourism workshop facilitated by Landudvikling Slagelse, can to some
degreebecategorisedasaclosedsettingbecauseonlyChristoffer,byvirtueofhiswork,hadnatural
access.Ontheotherhand,SørenwasnotguaranteedaccessandChristofferhadtonegotiatehis
participationbeforehand.
Attheworkshop,wewereabletoassumemostlyacovertposition,andtakinganovertrolewhen
we saw it beneficial for steering conversations and gaining information about tourism actors
present.ThecovertrolewasnaturallyassumedbyChristofferashehadtohelpwithpracticalities
duringpresentationsandtotheparticipantsattheworkshopwereseenasanemployeeforthe
municipality.Søren,atleastinthefirsthalfoftheworkshop,assumedacovertrole,andwasable
toblendinamongtheotheractorsatthetables.Asmentionedabove,oneofthedisadvantagesof
acovertroleistheinabilitytotakenoteswhilethestudyisbeingcarriedout.Atthisworkshop,
severalattendeesweresittingwiththeirlaptopsinfrontofthem,soSørenwasabletoalsousea
laptop to take notes of the observation without it being suspicious. The covert roles were
maintaineduntiltwothirdsintotheworkshop.Atthispointthepresentationsandsmallerrotation
workshopswasdoneanddinnerwasserved.Anexampleofhowwesawagoodopportunityto
switchtoovertandrevealourpositionasresearcherscameduringdinner,wherewecameintotalk
withagovernmentofficialsittingnexttous.Theofficialshowedtohavevaluablegeneralknowledge
ofthetourismsituationinthemunicipality,andbecauseofthishewasalsoabletogiveprovideus
some interesting interpretationsof somediscussions thathadarisenbetweenactorsduring the
15
workshop.Weestimatedthathisknowledgewastoovaluableinrelationtoourstudy,thatwehad
torevealourtrueintentionsofourpresence,towhichheluckilyreactedpositively.Wewerenow
abletoaskmorein-depthaboutthetopicshepreviouslyhadindicatedtohavemoreknowledgeof.
Theconversationwiththisgovernmentofficialwillbemoreprofoundlyexaminedinthefollowing
analysischapter,asthisisjustanexampleofhowswitchingfromcoverttoovertcanbebeneficial
for theresearcher(s).But ismustalsoberememberedthatthis revealingofandchangingtoan
overtrolecanhavetheeffectthatitcausesreactivity(Bryman,2012)amongsttheparticipantshow
nowknowsthetrueintentionsoftheresearchers.Reactivitycanoccurwhentheparticipantswho
arethetargetoftheobservationstudyclearlybegintochangeororganisetheirbehaviourbecause
theyhavebecomeawarethattheyarebeingobserved(Saunders,LewisandThornhill,2009).Asthe
shiftinobservationrolestookplacerelativelylateintheobservationstudyandclosetotheending
oftheworkshop,itmustbeassumedthatanyreactivitycausedbythishashadlittleimpactonthe
overallresultoftheobservations.
Takingnotesandanalysingparticipantobservations
Thepurposeofconductingaparticipantobservationinthisthesisis,asmentionedintheprevious
section,wastocollectgeneralknowledgeaboutthetourismactorsinthemunicipalityaswellasto
investigate the process and possible complications of creating a tourism collaboration. To
rememberimportantsituations,wordsandactionsthatoccurredduringtheworkshop,noteswas
writtenonalaptop.Duringparticipantobservations,dependingontheresearcher’sroleandthe
setting in general, there aredifferent approaches to taking fieldnotes: ranging fromonlyusing
memorywhenwritingseemsinappropriate,tojottednoteswithverybriefdescriptionsofsituations
to full field notes (ibid.: 450). In the previous section iswas described how Sørenwas able to,
withoutstandingout,sitwithalaptopattheworkshop.Thisallowedhimtotakesomein-depth
descriptive notes about the observed. On the basis of these full field notes, complementary
knowledgewascreatedfortheforthcomingqualitativeinterviews.
16
Interviews
The following section is intended to clarify the methodological considerations underlying the
interviews conducted in this thesis.On thebasis of this, the rationalebehind the choiceof the
interviewrespondentswillbepresentedtothereader.
Whenusingsemi-constructed interviewsasaqualitativemethod in this thesis, it isbecause the
intervieweeshopefullycanprovidetheresearchwithvaluableinsightsandknowledgeabouttheir
experiencesofbeingatourismactorinthemunicipalityofSlagelseandthepossiblecomplications
of creating a tourism collaboration.Much in relation to the social constructivist approach, the
researchquestionsinthisthesisarecallingforus,asresearchers,toengageinconversationswith
theactorstogaininsightsintotheirsocialrealityandeverydaylives(Kvale,2007).
Choosinginterviewees
In this research, 7 tourism actors have been chosen as interviewees. As touched upon in the
previoussection,oneofthebenefitsofhavingtheopportunitytoobservethetourismworkshop
wastouseitasapreliminaryexerciseandgainanunderstandingofwhotheactive(andnon-active)
tourismactorsinthemunicipalityare.
17
Figure1Mapofparticipatorsatthe2017tourismworkshopinthemunicipalityofSlagelse(Source:TheTourismDepartment)
As seen in the above map of participating actors at the workshop, a large part of them was
concentratedinandaroundthecitiesofKorsørandSkælskørandotherwisespreadoutthroughthe
municipality. First and foremost, we have therefor interviewed actors from the most densely
represented areas on the map as we know that these are areas who actively are pursuing a
developmentoftourisminthemunicipality.
Inadditiontoourinterestinthedenselyrepresentedareasofthemap,ourattentionwasalsodrawn
to gap in the southern partwhichwas not represented at theworkshop. Through Christoffer's
knowledgeoftheregionwewereawarethatthesouthernpart,mainlyinandaroundthetownof
Bisserup,indeedisinvolvedintourismwithcampingareas,beaches,birdsanctuariesandapopular
Lene Wibroe SkælskørLokalrådSimonne Gorju SIMONNE.DKBerit Andersen Danmarkerdejligt
Jørgen DamgaardLandudviklingSlagelse/GimlingeLokalråd
Birthe TofthøjSkælskørBådfartogKorsørMadmarked
Frederik Pedsersen Kultur,Fritid- ogTurismeudvalgetTroels Brandt LandudviklingSlagelseLisbet Kristensen DenBlåCaféGitte Fyrkov Musholmferie-sport-konferenceMarcel Hermes Musholmferie-sport-konferenceBirgitte Christensen KunigundePer Møller KunigundeKarenM Hansen FødevarerproducentHenrik Andersen DybkærgaardUlla BrinkHansen FødevarerLokaltFinnVedel Pedersen SlagelseKommuneHenrik MøllerKastrup OstebørsenPuk Hvistendal SlagelseKommuneEstridMaria Eriksen ESTRID/SlagelseturistforeningDitte Hvas SkælskørBykontorLillian WallinKristensen KunstnerogudlejerPerStangby Thuesen SlagelseTuristforeningAnneMette Christiansen LandudviklingSlagelseSøren Eriksen AalborgUniversitetJørn Engkebølle SlagelseTuristforeningCarsten Jensen SkælskørNorCampingTroels Christensen Kultur- FritidsogTurismeudvalgetAnders Riber SlagelseturistforeningLene Feldt KorsørLokalrådKurt Sørensen Bien,Produktionsskolen
Roland Ipsen SkælskørLokalrådJette Søndergaard Postgården,hotelLotte Falsing Brugerrådet,Kulturhuset,BoligKorsørFlemming Hansen Skælskørerhvervsforeningm.fl.Jack Rasmussen tudeåkanoKenn Rasmussen tudeåkanoKristin Larsen KorsørsejlklubTorben Roepstorff SkælskørTurismeJesperThykjær Andersen KorsørLystfiskerforeningMetteBlum Marcher GuldagergaardBettina Wentzer KorsørsejlklubPernille Hjort KorsørsejlklubLeif Andersen SkælskørBådfartSøren Larsen NaturformidlingvedSørenlarsenKarl Sigsgaard KorsørLystbådehavnLars Ellegaard SkælskørTurisme/LokalrådetFlemmingL. Petersen KLFJytte Bjergvang AgersøbeboerforeningMicha Meedom SlagelseKommuneAnne Carlsen CampinggårdenBoeslundeRasmusFriis Sørensen DanskKyst- ogNaturturismeHelene Gerup OmøFiskogTangF.M.B.A.Roland Ipsen SkælskørLokalrådEigil Hou PicnicforeningeniSlagelselystanlægChristoffer Karlsen SlagelseKommuneStine Andersen DybkærgaardMathias Andersen DybkærgaardLasse Andersen DybkærgaardJørgen Andersen KFTudvalgetAnette Moss VisitVestsjællandAllan Pedersen PanzermuseumEast
Billy JensenHalsskovLokalråd/FrivilligcenterSlagelse
Lotte Hansen LokalrådetSkælskørJohn Andersen DanmarkerdejligtAnne Bjergvang AgersøNaturcenterRita Bojesen KOKSkælskørDitte Holst AgersøNaturcenter
JørgenNordtorpJørgensen
DanskVandrelaug(Kvalitetsvandrestier)
Mette StryhnHansen GerlevLegepark
PerNygaardKristensen TaoCentret
Jørgen Rasmussen StorebæltVinterbadereAnne Justiniano SlagelseKommuneSussi Lægg DetLilleGlashusAnne Jensen HalsskovLokalrådHanne Liechti ArtMarketsVennerKaren Sejlund Håndstrikwww.haandstrik.comBranka Lugonja StGallaglaskunstSusanne Andersen DybkærgaardSteen Andresen SkælskørLokalrådMette Mandrup SlagelseKommuneNina Thorborg KunstnerværkstedetKabeldepotetAnders Helbo PanzermuseetsFriluftsmarkedDaniel Hansen journalist
Turismeworkshop2017
18
inn. It was therefor also a crucial part of our study to interview someone from Bisserup to
understandwhytheywerenotrepresentedattheworkshop.
Besidesprovidinguswithamorecompleteinsighttotheactors’perceptionofthetourisminitiatives
inthemunicipality,theirgeographicaldiversitymayalsohelpgiveusinsightsaboutifactorsphysical
locationrelativetoeachothercanaffectthesynergyofthemandtheirwillingnesstobeapartofa
tourismcollaboration.
Lastly,weinterviewedPukHvistendalfromthemunicipalityofSlagelse,whoisatourismproject
leader.Shewasinterviewedtogainbasicunderstandingofthetourismprojectsinthemunicipality
andhowtheyhandlethecreationoftourismcollaborations.
Interviewdesign
Interviewingcanbeachallengingprocessandneedstobeplannedandconductedcarefully,butif
executedright,interviewscanbeoneofthebestqualitativemethodicalchoicesinunderstandthe
worldofourfellowhumanbeings(BrinkmannandTanggaard,2010).Inourcase,theplanningof
theinterviewswasdonewithinspirationfromChristofferpre-knowledgeaboutthemunicipality,
inspirationfromtheparticipantobservationandtheliteraturereview(whichwillbepresentedto
thereaderinthenextchapter).
As mentioned earlier, the interviews were conducted as semi-structured which, compared to
structuredinterviews,“[…]canmakebetteruseoftheknowledge-producingpotentialsofdialogues
by allowing more leeway for following up on whatever angles are deemed important by the
interviewee.”(Brinkmann,2013:21).
Theinterviewswereconductedwiththeassistanceofsomelooselythemedguides.Theguidesall
consistedoftwoorthreemainquestions,eachcontainingfollow-upquestionstohelpinthecases
weretheconversationwasturnedtomuchawayfromtheoverallthemes.
Theinterviewees
Thispartofthemethodologychapterwillintroducethereadertotherespondentsthathavebeen
conductedsemi-constructedinterviewswithforthepurposeofansweringtheresearchquestionof
19
this thesis. Each respondentwill be presentedwith a short description andwith the rationales
behindchoosingthem.
JetteSøndergaard,HotelPostgaarden,Skælskør
OurfirstinterviewwasconductedwithJetteSøndergaardwhoistheowneranddailymanagerof
HotelPostgaardeninSkælskør.Shehasbeenmanagingandrunningthehotelsincesheboughtitin
2007whereitwasalmostjustaruin.Shetheninvestedalotoftimeandmoneyandspentthenext
yearsrebuildingwhatisnowasmallhotelwithgoodfacilitiessuchas;banquetfacilities,conference
roomandrestaurant.Thehotelisverywell-likedinthelocalareaandwithitslocationrightnextto
thecityharbouranditsbeautifulexterior,ithasbecomeabitofalandmarkinthecityofSkælskør.
With ten years as a hotel owner, she possesses valuable knowledge about tourism in the local
community.JetteSøndergaardwaschosenasanintervieweeonthebackgroundofobservations
wedidat theearliermentioned tourismworkshop,wherewesatat thesametableasher.We
noticedthatshewasobviouslyirritatedduringtheworkshop,andwebecameinterestedinlearning
moreaboutherperceptionofandopinionsontourismcollaborationsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse
andinparticularwhyshewasreactingthewayshedidattheworkshop.
TineJensen,MusholmHolidayandConferenceCentre,Korsør
Musholm Holiday and Conference Centre is located in the outskirts of Korsør, and they are
specialisinginmakingholidayexperiencesforpeoplewithspecialneeds.Thisismainlyconcerned
aroundpeoplewithphysicalchallengesastheyhavedevelopedtheirfacilitiesandroomstoreceive
thesekindsofguests.ThetypicalguestsatMusholmarefamilies,inwhichthereareapersonor
personswho fallwithin the aforementioned group of physical challenged. A large part of their
visitorsduringsummerarealsoinstitutionsonholidayorwhoaredoingsummercamps.Familiesor
personswithoutanydisabilitiesarealsoableto,andverymuchwelcometovisitthecentreforat
stay,butactivitiesandfacilitiesaredesignedandtargetedforpeoplewithphysicaldisabilities.
Tine Jensen is the daily activity coordinator atMusholmHoliday andConference Centre,which
meansthatsheisplanningandcoordinatingactivitiesandeventswithpartnersandcustomers.She
hasbeenworkingatMusholmforalittleovertwoyears,andsheisoriginallynotfromthearea.This
openedup foradifferentapproach thanmostof theother interviewees,whoallhavea longer
20
historyinthemunicipality.Thisgaveustheopportunitytwointerviewapersonwhomaybeisnot
biasedbyahistoricconnectiontoacertainareainthemunicipality.Furthermore,asmentioned
earlier,MusholmislocatedintheKorsørarea,whichisoneofthethreebigcitiesinthemunicipality
andthereforitwasimportanttotalkwithactorsfromthere.
HansLarsen,BoeslundeCamping,betweenKorsørandSkælskør
BoeslundeCampingislocatedsomewhereinthemiddlebetweenKorsørandSkælskør.Itisaregular
camping area with additional holiday cabins and holiday apartments. Boeslunde Camping was
chosenasaninterestingtargetforaninterviewbecauseofthelocationbetweentwoofthebigger
cities.Itwasimportantnotonlytointerviewactorsfromthethreebigcities,butalsotofindtourism
actorsplacedoutsideofthese.
ToniAndersen,BisserupTownCouncil,Bisserup
Basedontheobservationsfromthetourismworkshop,whereitwasnoticedthatnoonefromthe
southernpartofthemunicipalityaroundBisserupwasattending,acuriositywasawakenedasto
findoutwhytheywerenotthere,andiftheymaybehaveadifferentviewontourismcollaborations
inthemunicipality.ContactwasmadewiththespokespersonoftheBisserupTownCouncil,Toni
Andersen,whoagreedtodoaninterview.Bisserupisasmalltownplacedatthecoastlineinthe
southernpartofthemunicipality.Thereisonlyabout500inhabitants,butnonethelessthetown
hasquitealotoftouristsvisitingeveryyear–especiallythebeach,theharbourwithorganicfish
salesandbirdsanctuaryarepopularamongthevisitors.
SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,betweenKorsørandSlagelse
Dybkærgaardisafamilyownedfarmwithafarmshopopenforvisitorsallyeararound.Theyarea
fairlynewactorinthetourismsector,astheshophasonlybeenrunningfortwoyears.Theshopis
steadilygrowingwithevenmorevisitorseveryyear,andtheyareplanningonexpandingthetourism
businesswithabicyclerentalfortouristswhowantstodrivearoundinthescenicarea.Because
theyareasuccessfulnewcomer inthefieldof tourism, itwas interestingto listentotheirstory
abouthowtheyhavegottentothispointandhowmuchinteractiontheyhavebeenhavingwiththe
localgovernmentandothertourismactors.
21
PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,Slagelse
ThelocaltourismassociationinSlagelseis,liketheothertourismassociationsinthemunicipalities,
avolunteerorganisation.ThechairmanoftheboardisPerThuesen,whoinhisdayjobisworking
asaroyalequerryinCopenhagen.Hehasbeenthechairmanforthelastcoupleofyears,andhehas
beenworking hard on changing the focus of the organisation to amore tourism collaboration
orienteddirection.Inthelocalarea,heisknownasahardworkinganddedicatedmanwhoisdoing
a lottohelpthe local tourismactors.Whenheretires fromhisregular jobnextyear,hewillbe
dedicatingallofhistimetothetourismassociation.Hewaschosenasanintervieweebecausehe
firstofallisamemberofoneofthetourismassociationsinthemunicipality.Thetourismassociation
hasan interesting role in thecreationof tourismcollaborationsbecause they inmanywaysare
functioningaslinksbetweenthelocalgovernmentandthetourismactors,andthereforemighthave
interestingviewsonthesubjectofcollaboration.Furthermore,PerThuesenhasbeeninvolvedin
theplanningprocessoftheveryworkshopwhichwasthesubjectforourobservationstudyinthis
research.
PukKirkeskovHvistendal,projectleaderinthelocalgovernment,Slagelse
AstheprojectleaderoftheCoastalandNatureprojectandasanemployeeofthelocalgovernment,
PukKirkeskovHvistendalwasanimportantrespondent.Shewaschosenasanintervieweebecause
she, in her position, was able to provide us with knowledge of how the local government are
approachingthecreationoftourismcollaborationsbetweenactors.
Validityoftheresearchandlimitations
Thevalidityofresearchwithinsocialscienceisconcernedwith“[…]theintegrityoftheconclusions
thataregeneratedfromapieceofresearch”(Bryman,2012:47).Toensurethatasatisfyinglevelof
validity was reached for the research for this thesis, which to a very high degree is based on
qualitative researchmethods throughsemi-constructed interviews, several considerationsabout
thepreparationandconductofinterviewscanbemade.Whenconductinginterviewsandasking
therespondentstorecollectmemoriesofthepast(whichinthiscasehappenedoftenbecauseof
22
questionsconcerningtheoldmunicipalitystructure),itisimportantnottorushandpressurefora
quickanswerbutinsteadgivetherespondenttimetothink(Brinkmann,2013).Whenapproaching
possiblerespondentsbeforehandwithaninquiryforaninterview,theyweretoldthatitwouldlast
foranapproximately30minutes,butbeforeeveryinterviewitwasensuredthatsignificantlymore
time was available from the researchers if the respondents use more time on their answers.
Furthermore,ifitwasvisiblethattherespondentsseemedtobestressedaboutnotbeingableto
answerquickenoughtothequestions,theyweretoldthatshouldtakethetimetheyneeded.
Inordertoobtainamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofhowtourismcollaborationsarecreated
andhowitworks inthemunicipalityofSlagelse,therespondentswereselectedonthebasison
some criteria that there should a certain geographical diversity between them. The geographic
diversityamongsttherespondentswastoacertaindegreereachedwiththeexceptionofthetwo
small islands of Omø and Agersø which lie outside of the southern part of the coast in the
municipality.ThetwoislandshaveacouncilthatinsomewaysalsoisfunctioningasaLTO,andit
wouldindeedhavebeeninterestingforthisresearchtolistentheirstories.Unfortunately,itturned
outtobeimpossibletoestablishcontactandsetupaninterview.Similarly,itwouldalsohavebeen
rewardingfortheresearchifithadbeenpossibletosetupaninterviewwiththeLTOinKorsørto
give them the opportunity to give their opinions of the topic of tourism collaboration in the
municipality. In both instances, contactwas first attempted bymail and then followedupwith
phonecallswhichwerenotresponded.
Ethicalconsiderations
Alltherespondentsinterviewedforthisthesisweregiventheopportunitytobeanonymous.We
wereawarethatsomeofthequestionsintheinterviewguidesevolvedaroundtopicsrelatedtothe
respondent’s attitudes towards other actors in the municipality. None of the respondents
interviewedchosetobeanonymous,andtheyarethereforeappearingbynameinthisthesis.During
theobservationstudy,themajorityoftheparticipantswerenotawarethattheywerebeingstudied
andbecauseofthis,somespecificparticipantsmentionedintheanalysiswillnotappearbyname.
Thisiseitherbecausetheyhavechosennottodosoorthatithassimplynotbeenpossibletogetin
contactwiththemafterwards.
23
Theoreticalconsiderations
Inthischapter,areviewofrelevant literatureassociatedtotheresearchquestionaskedforthis
project,willbepresentedtothereader.Withtheresearchquestionsaskedforthisproject,wewish
tolookintocollaborationandpartnershipswithinatourismdestination,andhowtheseareaffected
by the planning and development on the destination level. Understanding how relations and
collaborationsfunctionsbetweentourismactorsandstakeholders,bothpublicandprivate,isthe
pointofdeparture.Thefocusforthisresearchwillthereforebebasedwithintheresearchfieldof
stakeholder and collaboration theory, and power relations within stakeholder networks.
Furthermore,it isinterestingtolookintotheliteratureconcerningpublic/privaterelations,since
we are interested in finding out how the tourism actors perceive the strategymade by a local
government.
In the following section of this chapter, a review of research and theory within stakeholders,
stakeholdernetworks,powerrelations,tourismpolicy instruments,collaborationamongtourism
actorsandtourismplanningincommunity-basedtourism,willbepresented.
Stakeholdertheory
Asinanyotherindustry,adestinationconsistsofstakeholderswhichareaffectedbythestateof
tourisminthearea.Stakeholdersarealsoaffectedbyeachother,andsocioculturalandeconomic
factors. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is
affectedbytheachievementofanorganisation’sobjectives”(Freeman,1984:46).
Freeman’s(1984)definitioninvolvesamassivenumberofcompanies,individualsandorganisations,
sowhatneedstobedetermine iswhatcategoryofstakeholders is relevant forthisresearch. In
TinsleyandLynch(2001)descriptionofwhatatourismdestinationis,theyalsodescribetheverity
of stakeholders there iswithin adestination. They say that a tourismdestination consistsof“a
number of components such as attractions, accommodation, transport, and other services and
infrastructure” (Tinsley and Lynch, 2001: 372). A stakeholder in a tourism destination can be
organisationsorindividualswhoare,ornotare,workingwithtourism,orseethemselvesasapart
of a tourism destination. According to Gray (1989), stakeholders are all individuals, groups, or
organizations“directlyinfluencedbytheactionsotherstaketosolveaproblem"(Gray,1989:5).
24
According toactor-network theory,whichwewill talkmore about later, “actor-network theory
employsasemioticdefinitionofactorswhotaketheirformandacquiretheirattributesasaresult
oftheirrelationswithotherones.Anactorisanythingthatactsorreceivesactivityfromothers.So,
theirscope isextendedfarbeyond individualhumans” (Jensen,2001. In.VanderDuim,2007.P.
963).
Howwestudyactor-networks
Accordingtotourismresearchers(Tribe,2005;Murdoch,2006;Law,2004;Latour,2005),tourism
studieshastakenaturnfromadistantobservingtask,toamoreactivewayofstudying.Tribe(2005)
describesthisneweraofresearchas;“thetotalityoftourismstudieshasnowdevelopedbeyondthe
narrowboundariesofanappliedbusinessfieldandhasthecharacteristicsofafledgingpostmodern
fieldofresearch”(Tribe,2005:p.5).ScholarssuchasMurdoch(2006),Law(2004)andLatour(2005)
claimsthatresearcherscannolongerstudyactor-networksfromadistance,butshouldexamine
hownetworksareformedandcreatedamongtourismactors.Itisbyobservingtheserelationswe
canstudy“whogainsandwholoses,andbywhichmechanismsofpower”(Flyvbjerg,2006:40),and
whatvaluesandmeaningsareattachedtothenetwork.Law(1994)states“thateverythingyouseek
toexplainordescribeshouldbeapproachedinthesameway’’(Law1994.P.9-10),whichintheory
makessense,but inreality,mightbehardtofollow.Because, ifwefollowMurdoch(2006),Law
(2004) and Latour (2005) argument about studying tourism networks and its actors closely, by
putting ourselves in the field, the research can quickly go in different directions depending on
responses,obstaclesandfocuspoints.Butthewayweasresearchersinitiallyapproachthetourism
network,shouldbethesame,asLawpointsout.
Researchingnetworks
Networks in a tourism destination can be hard to identify, since they can be both formal and
informal,andactorscanbepartofmanynetworksatthesametime,anddropinandoutofthem
astheylike(Dredge,2006).DianneDredge(2006)hasinacasestudyofLakeMacquarie,NewSouth
Wales,describeshowtostructuretheprocesswhenresearchingnetworksinatourismdestination
(Dredge,2006.P.271-274).ThefollowingwilldrawfromthefourstepsdescribedDianaDredge.
First,weshouldidentifywhatnetworksareinterestingfortheresearch.Bymappingthetourism
actorsinatourismscape,itispossibletodrawtiesbetweentheactorsandmapouttherelations
25
betweenthem.AccordingtoKnezovich(2014),therecanbethreedifferentreasonsformappinga
network:understandhowwecanengageinasystem,understandthebroaderimplicationsofour
engagementinasystemordescribehowasystemisworking.
Second,weshoulddecidewhataspectofanetworkisrelevantforourresearch.Isittounderstand
socioculturalaspectsofacommunity,or istounderstandtheeconomicsthatdrivesthetourism
actorsinnetwork.Anotheraspectcouldbevaluesandpowerrelationswithinanetwork.“Froma
structural-functionalist perspective, networks can be investigated according to a number of
dimensionsincludingcentrality,densityandthestrengthandreciprocityofrelationalties”Dredge,
2006: 272). This argument fromDredge is somethingwewill comeback to later in the section
describingliteratureandtheorywithinnetworkpowerrelations.
Dredge (2006) has adaptedWaarden’s (1992) table of dimensions and properties of networks,
whichfunctionsasalistingofaspectsofnetworksthatcanberesearched(seeTable1).
Dimensions Properties
Actorsandagencies The number and type of actors involved; needs and interests of
actors; interdependencies between actors, structures, capacities
andresources;degreeofprofessionalization;mandate;perceived
roleandattitudesofactors.
Functionsofthenetwork Accesstothedecision-makingprocess;consultationandexchange
between participants; negotiation; coordination; co-operation in
policyformulation.
Structureofthenetwork Size of the network; boundaries (open or closed); membership
requirements; pattern of linkages; strength of relations;
density/multiplexity; clustering; centrality of the network;
reciprocityofinterconnections.
Characteristics of
institutionalisation
Ad hoc, temporary or informal organization to formal, stable,
permanentcoalitionstructures.
Rulesofconduct Negotiation and accommodation of conflicting interests; shared
sense of public welfare; secrecy or openness; politicalization or
mutualunderstandingtodepoliticiseissues;rationalistpragmatism
orideologicaldisputes.
26
Powerrelations Captureof stateagenciesbybusiness interests;autonomyof the
state;capturebyprivateinterests;balanceofpowerbetweenstate-
interestgroups,hegemony.
Actorstrategies Tostructurerelationswithinthenetwork;toinfluencetheselection
ofactorsinthenetwork;toinfluencethefunctionofthenetwork;
tocreateornurturecertainconventionorinterests.
Table1Dimensionsandpropertiesofnetworks(Waarden,1992:In.Dredge2006,p.273)
Withthelistabove,andKnezovich’s(2014)reasonsfordoingnetworkresearch,itisimportantto
acceptthattheshapeandconditionofnetworksareaffectedbymanydifferentaspects.Therefore,
weasresearchershastokeepanopenmindwhenapproachinganetwork.Forexample,power
relationscanaffecteconomics,andtheotherwayaroundandsoon.
Thirdly,howdoesanetwork,oraclusterofnetworks,influencetherelationshipbetweenpublic
and private partnerships. Some networks are actively created by public department in a local
government,mightstrengthenthecommunicationbetweentheprivatetourismactorsandthelocal
government.Networkswithonlyprivateactorscouldcreateadistancebetweenthepublicandthe
private.
ThefourthandfinalstepofDredge’s(2006)stepsonhowtoapproachanetworkresearch,isto
reflectonhowthefindingswillbepreservedbytheactors,thelocalgovernmentandthenetwork
in general. What outcome should the research have in order to develop and innovate the
destinationandthenetworkswithinit.Somefindingmightcallforanewstrategyfromthelocal
government’s side of the table, but that might not be in every tourism actors interest. When
reachingaconclusiononhowtodevelop,weshouldcarefullythinkabouthowtoimplement.
Collaborationsinatourismdestination
JamalandGetz(1995)werethefirsttointroducecollaborationtheoryamongtourismstakeholders.
Theirargumentformorecollaborationintourismdestinationwasthattheindustryisfragmented
withmanydifferentstakeholders(JamalandGertz,1995).Otherthanstrengthentherelationship
between private stakeholders, Jamal and Gertz further argued that collaboration could benefit
public/privaterelationships.“Inadditiontoaidingpublic-privatesectorinteractions,collaboration
27
may provide an effective mechanism for community involvement in tourism planning, through
selectionofkeystakeholderstorepresentthevariouspublicinterests”(JamalandGertz,1995:200).
Morrison (2013)has listed fiveexamplesonhowpartnershipsandcollaborationamong tourism
stakeholdersisavaluablecontributiontoatourismdestination:
• Destinationplanning:Planningwithin adestination canbeadifficult task, since it often
involvesawiderangeofdifferentstakeholders.Ifallstakeholdershaveacommonobjective,
planningwillbecomeeasier.
• Research:Thisisasrelevantforusatitcanbe.Researchingwiththeobjectivetobetterthe
destinationcanbehardifthestakeholdersisnotwillingtoprovidethenecessarydatato
researchupon.
• Product development: Sharing of knowledge lead to development, and if tourism
stakeholderiswillingtohelpeachother,developmentoftourismproductsbecomemuch
moresuccessful.
• Marketingandpromotion:Joiningresourcestopromoteawholedestinationismuchmore
effectivethanifeverytourismactortriestopromotethemselves.
• Community relations: Tourism effect the everyday life of the local community at a
destination.Throughcollaborations the local communities canhavea say in the tourism
planningoftheirarea,whichwillresolveinlesscounteractingofthetourismdevelopment.
(Morrison2013.P.193)
Public/privaterelations
Adestination isamultilevelphenomenon (Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010),which
successaredependingon thedestination’sability tocreatehealthypublic/private relationships.
Therearenolimitationsonthegeographicscaleatourismnetworkcanhave,whichmeansitcan
beaconnectionbetweenactorsfarbeyondthedestinationsborders.Whatwenowwanttoexplore
is the relation between public networks and private network, and evenmore interesting is the
networkswhichincludebothpublicandprivateactors.
“Localgovernmentsinmanycountriesarebecomingincreasinglyinvolvedinavariety
of activities to boost tourism, including destination marketing, strengthening local
28
tourism industrynetworks,andoffering incentives inorder toattract investment in
newtourismdevelopment”
(Long,1994;Elliot,1997;Godfrey,1998;Hall,1998.InDredge,2001:356)
Oneoftheactionsthatlocalgovernmentstaketotryanddeveloptourism,istoestablishakindof
local government fundedDMO.Anorganisationwhich the local government canoutsource the
tourism responsibility to, which is popular among local governmentswith smaller destinations.
Thereisaneconomicexplanationforthischoiceofstrategy,sincelocalgovernmentsarerestricted
bydifferentlawsthatcanlimittheiractionsinrelationtodeveloptourism.Aprivateorganisation
doesnothavethesamerestrictions,andcanforinstancehavepayingpartners(Morrison,A.2013).
“Inmostdestinations,theLTO(LocalTourismOrganisation)istheindustry’speakbody,whichisin
turn supported by sets of formal and informal networks that span public and private sectors”
(Dredge, 2006: p 270). An enthusiastic and productive relationship between a LTO and a local
government,areofgreat importancetothedevelopmentofadestination,andcancreateother
networkswithinthetourismsectorinadestination(Dredge,2006).
Researchingthesepublic/privatenetworkscanbedifficult,andpaststudiesdooftendescribeand
analyseonemomentintime,butcannotconcludethetransformationofanetworkovertime.“Case
studies, inparticular, contribute important insights intonetworks since the roleand influenceof
networksarebestunderstoodatthe levelatwhichdestinationplanningandmanagementtakes
place”(Dredge,2006:271).Analysingtourismactorsandtheirviewonapublic/privaterelationship
canbehard,sincetheycanbeunwillingtocompletelyopenupsinceitisthecommunitytheyalso
liveandworkin,intheircivillife(Dredge,2006).
Collaborationamongstakeholders
‘Partnership’ and ‘cooperation’ are two other terms that often are used when talking about
stakeholdersworkingtogetherforacommonobjective.AccordingtoJamalandStronza(2009),the
term‘collaboration’describesamuchdeeperinter-organizationalrelation.“Collaborationprovides
foraflexibleanddynamicprocessthatevolvesovertime,enablingmultiplestakeholderstojointly
addressproblemsorissues”(JamalandStronza,2009).TwentyyearsearlierGray(1989)described
collaborationas"aprocessofjointdecisionmakingamongkeystakeholdersofaproblemdomain
29
aboutthefutureofthatdomain"(Gray,1989:227).EventhoughJamalandGetz(1995)introduced
collaborationtheoryamongtourismstakeholdersbackin1995,collaborationamongstakeholders
inother fieldshasbeen researchuponearlier.Gray (1989)describedhowcollaboration among
stakeholderscandevelopsharedvisions,andresolveconflictsinnetworks,whenthestakeholders
recognizetheadvantageofworkingtogether(Gray,1989).Thiscouldbeakeypointfortourism
developers in a destination, to get stakeholders and tourism actors to see the advantages of
collaboration.
JamalandGertz(1995)hasintheirworkwithcommunitytourismplanning,usedGray’sdescription
ofcollaboration,andadaptedittotourismplanning.
“Collaboration forcommunity-based tourismplanning isaprocessof jointdecision-
makingamongautonomous,keystakeholdersofaninter-organizational,community
tourismdomaintoresolveplanningproblemsofthedomainand/ortomanageissues
relatedtotheplanninganddevelopmentofthedomain.”
(JamalandStronza,1995:188)
‘Community’referstothegroupofpeoplelivingindestination,buttheirdefinitiondoesalsoalign
with Van der Duim’s (2007) idea of a tourismscape consisting of both human and non-human
elements.Stakeholdersare‘autonomous’dotothefactthateventhoughtheyarecollaboration
andworkingforcommonvisions,theystillhavetheirindependentinterests,andmustvaluetheir
owninterestshigh(WoodandGray,1991).The‘problemdomain’ishowproblemsandsituations
withinadestinationandanetworkofstakeholders,canbeatypethatcannotbesolvedbyjustone
stakeholder,botcallsforaninter-organizationalaction.
Gray(1989)hasfivekeypointsaboutthecollaborationprocess:
- “Thestakeholdersareindependent
- Solutionsemergebydealingconstructivelywithdifferences
- Jointownershipofdecisionsisinvolved
- Thestakeholdersassumecollectiveresponsibilityfortheongoingdirectionofthedestination
- Collaborationisanemergentprocess,wherecollaborativeinitiativescanbeunderstoodas
emergentorganizationalarrangementsthroughwhichorganizationscollectivelycopewith
thegrowingcomplexityoftheirenvironments"(Gray1989:236)
30
Gary furthermore describes a three-stage model about developing collaboration among
stakeholders.First,theproblemandkeystakeholdersmustbeidentified.Whoisthestakeholders
thatarethesestakeholders,individualororganisations(Freeman,1984),thataredirectlyinfluenced
bytheidentifiedproblem.Thenextstepistofindacommonsenseofpurpose.Asmentionedby
WoodandGray(1991),stakeholdersaremainlyfocusedontheirownagenda,whichmeansthata
common path must be found. “Identifying and sharing future collaborative interpretations;
appreciatingasenseofcommonpurpose”(JamalandStronza,2009).Thelaststageistoimplement
andnurturethecollaboration.
Trist (1979) has an interesting point on collaborations among organisations, and collaborations
leading to change. The argument is that individuals’ minds can change faster than whole
organisations’,soindividuals’valuescanbenefitandbethestartingpointforcollaborationsthat
canchangethefuture(Trist,1979).
Residentswithinadestinationisastakeholderwhichmustbemanagecorrectlytogaintheirmuch-
neededsupport.LankfordandHowardcreatedtheTourismImpactAttitudeScale(TIAS),amodel
thatcanbeusedtoanalysetourism’s impactonresidenceinadestination.Theirfindingswhere
that local governments and tourism developers and planners, must make extensive efforts to
involve locals in the development process, and make collaborations with these groups of
stakeholders(LankfordandHoward,1994).Itisimportanttorecognisethattourismdevelopment
inanareaaffecttheeverydaylifeoftheresidence.
“Local governments and tourism promoters should pay particular attention to the
findingthatifpeoplefeeltheyhaveaccesstotheplanning/publicreviewprocessand
thattheirconcernsarebeingconsidered,theywillsupporttourism.”
(LankfordandHoward,1994:135).
Theyfurtherarguethatresidentswhohavebenefittedfromtourismintheirarea,arelesslikelyto
perceive thesocialandenvironmental impactsasdamaging thearea,butdoon theotherhand
perceivetheeconomicimpacttobegreaterthantherealitymightbe(LankfordandHoward,1994).
JamalandGetz(1995)hasmadesixpropositionsasatoolfortourismmanagersandplanners,as
wellasresearchers,tousewhenworkingwithcollaborationonacommunitylevel.
Proposition1:
31
“Collaborationforcommunity-basedtourismplanningwillrequirerecognitionofahigh
degree of interdependence in planning andmanaging the destination” (Jamal and
Getz,1995.P.197).Theremustbeagoodcollaborationbetweenthelocalcommunity
and the tourism actors, because they are sharing the same resources and space.
“Tourismdevelopment thatexceeds thecarryingcapacityof theeconomic,natural,
andsocioculturalenvironmentwillimpactnegativelyontheoveralltourismindustryof
thecommunity,duetothecloseinterrelationsoftheelementswithinthecommunity's
tourismsystem”(JamalandGetz,1995:197).
Proposition2
“Collaboration will require recognition of individual and/or mutual benefits to be
derived fromtheprocess” (JamalandGetz,1995:197).AsWaddock (1989)argues,
theremustbethreeconditionsinplacebeforeacollaborationcanhappenbetween
organisations; “recognition of interdependence, perceptions that significant benefit
will result from the collaboration, and recognition of importance of the issue(s)”
(Waddock,1989in:JamalandGetz,1995:197).
Proposition3
“Collaborationforcommunity-basedtourismplanningwill requireaperceptionthat
decisionsarrivedatwillbeimplemented(i.e.,theprocesshaslegitimacyandpowerto
eithermakeorstronglyinfluencetheplanningdecisions”(JamalandGetz,1995:198).
Stakeholderhastofeelthattheyareinsomekindofpositiontochangeorinfluence
things,forthemtowanttoinvesttimeincollaboraterelations.
Proposition4
“Collaboration for tourism destination planning will depend on encompassing the
followingkeystakeholdergroups:
§ localgovernmentplusotherpublicorganizationshavingadirectbearingon
resourceallocation
§ tourism industry associations and sectors such as Chamber of Commerce,
ConventionandVisitorBureau,regionaltouristauthority
§ residentorganizations(communitygroups)
§ socialagencies(e.g.,schoolboards,hospitals)
32
§ specialinterestgroups”(JamalandGetz,1995:198)
Proposition5
“A convener is required to initiate and facilitate community-based tourism
collaboration. The convener should have the following characteristics: legitimacy,
expertise,resources,plusauthority,andmaybederivedfromagovernmentagency,
anindustryfirm,orgroupsuchasthelocalChamberofCommerce,orthelocaltourist
organization”(Ibid:199).
Proposition6
Aneffectivecommunitycollaborationprocess for strategic tourismplanning for the
destination requires: formulation of a vision statement on desired tourism
development and growth; joint formulation of tourism goals and objectives; self-
regulationoftheplanninganddevelopmentdomainthroughtheestablishmentofa
collaborative (referent) organization to assist with ongoing adjustment of these
strategiesthroughmonitoringandrevisions”(Ibid:199)
Tourism planning in a community is complex task do to themixture of residence and tourism
planners,sharingofeconomicandenvironmentalresourcesandgettingstakeholderstorecognize
theinterdependence.Acollaborationstrategy“(…)maybesuitabletomanageturbulentplanning
domainsatthelocallevel”(Ibid:200).
Localgovernmentpolicyandplanning
AccordingtoTinsleyandLynch,(2001),atourismdestinationis“anumberofcomponentssuchas
attractions,accommodation,transport,andotherservicesandinfrastructure”(TinsleyandLynch,
2001: p.372). Haugland, Ness, Grønseth and Aarstad (2010) describes how a destination is
multileveled,sinceithasissuesonmanydifferentlevelswithinthedestination.Therecanbeissues
onactorlevel,thatshouldbeaddresseddifferentlythatissuesonadestinationlevel,meaningthat
planningandstrategiesalsoneedstohavedifferentlevels.Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad
(2010)arguesthattherearethreemainlevels,theactorlevel,thedestinationlevelandthelarger
geographical level, and for that reason it is important to incorporate an integrated multilevel
strategy(Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010).
33
Tourismdestinationdevelopmentistheactivitythatshouldleadtovalueforthedestinationand
thetourismactors.Ifwelookatitfromalocalgovernmentperspective,or/andaDMO,tourism
developmentisnotonlynurturingoftourismactors.Atourismdevelopmentstrategymustspanthe
boundariesofthedestination,andengagewiththeworldaroundit.Haugland,Ness,Grønsethand
Aarstadhasintheirworkwithintegratedmultileveledstrategies,developedaframeworkshowing
threedifferentlevelsofadestination.
- Destinationcapabilities:“Themoreadvancedcapabilitiesadestinationpossesses,interms
ofimageandbranding,andutilizationofdistributedresourcesandcompetencies,thebetter
willthedestinationbeatdevelopingintegratedmultilevelstrategies.”
- CoordinationattheDestinationLevel:“Asthelevelofdestinationintegrationincreases,in
termsofreplacingconventional,individualisticinter-actorrelationshipswithadministered,
contractual, or corporate relationships, the destination’s ability to develop integrated
multilevelstrategieswillincrease.”
- Inter-destination Bridge Ties: “Combining different inter-organizational forms at the
destination levelwill contribute tomore efficient integratedmultilevel strategies, as this
enables comparison between forms of coordination and stimulates intra-destination
competition.”
(Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010:p.274-280)
34
Figure1Aframeworkfortourismdestinationdevelopment(Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010:p.280)
Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstadarguesthattheresultofintegratedmultilevelstrategies,will
leadtovalueforcompanies.Buttourismplanningcanbeadifficulttask,andwhatisevenharderis
tocreateadestinationstrategythatfitsall.Areasonforadestinationstrategymightbetogain
somesortof competitiveadvantageoverotherdestinations,bycreatingauniqueproduct,ora
themeforthedestination.Butatthesametimeactorswithinthedestinationaretryingtocreate
their competitive advantage. “Developing competitive advantages at the destination level is a
complexendeavourasitinvolvesanumberofdifferentactors.Itrequiresallactorstoagreeonaset
ofcommonstrategicgoalsandtobewillingtoimplementactor-levelstrategiesaimedatachieving
thesecommongoals”(Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010:p.284).
35
Policyinstrumentstofacilitatecollaboration
Svensson,NordinandFlagestad(2005)arguesthatthereisanabsentofresearchdealingwiththe
destinationgovernmentsinvolvementindestinationpartnerships.
Local governments can play an active role on developing collaborations, which is often the
instrumentbeingusedtodeveloptourisminadestination.Localgovernmentscannotcreatespecific
tourismproducts,sotheirtaskistoencourageandnurturethecommercialstakeholderstojoinin
partnerships.DianneDredge(2016)hasdescribedfourdifferentpolicyinstrumentsthatcanbeused
bygovernment,orlocalgovernments,toreachadesiredoutcome:
• Financialinstruments–arethosethatusemoneytoachieveadesiredeffect.Thesemight
includepositivefiscalincentivessuchassubsides,taxbreaksandinvestmentincentivesto,
forexample,attract investmenttoencourageprivatesectoractorstoconserveorprotect
environmental assets. Negative instruments might include taxes and surcharges and
environmentallevies,andmightbeusedinanefforttoreducedemandatenvironmentally
sensitivesites. Intourism,socialentrepreneurship,positivefinancial incentives,taxbreaks
andsubsidiescouldbeusedtocreateenablingconditions.
• Information instruments - include information and education campaigns and advocacy
initiatives targetedatdifferentactorsand collectives, and thataredesigned to influence
behaviour.Informationinstrumentscanshapetheenrolmentofdifferentsocietalgroupsand
actorsinsocialentrepreneurshipandcanfacilitateculturalchange.Voluntaryaccreditation,
awardprogramsandmarket-basedinitiativeswhereinoperatorsleveragemarketadvantage
aimedatshapingbehaviourwouldalsofallunderthiscategory.
• Authorityinstruments-arethosethatrelyongovernmentauthorityandinfluencetoachieve
their desired effect. Laws and other statutory instruments can be used to support and
encouragesocialentrepreneurship,suchaslegislationthatformallyrecognizesandclarifies
its operational environment, financial and taxation responsibilities and reporting
requirements.
• Organizational instruments -Organizational instruments includethose initiativeswherein
governmentscreateorsupporttheestablishmentoforganizationalentitiesorpartnerships
toachieveadesiredoutcome.Destinationmanagementandmarketingorganizationsare
examplesororganizationalinstrumentswheretheyaresupportedbygovernment.
36
(Dredge,2016:p,11)
DestinationpartnershipandDestinationteam-building
AccordingtoWilson,BuultjensandNielsen(2009)thereisalackinresearchfocusingonbinding
partnership in tourism, between public and private organizations. Binding partnership are
categorizedaspartnerships that aboundeitherby commercial contractsor legal arrangements
(Wilson,BuultjensandNielsen2009).
DirectlylinkedtoDredge’s(2016)organisationalinstrumentisanarticlebyMorrison(2013),where
he defines two types of collaborationswhich can actively be created by local governments. He
describesthedifferencebetweendestinationpartnershipsanddestinationteam-building,whichare
twospecifictypesofcollaborations.
Destinationpartnershipreferstotheideathatstandingtogetherisbetterthatstandingalone,or
asMorrisonputsit“1+1equalsmorethantwo”(Morrison,2013,p.192).Anexamplefromofthis
canbe local governmentsoutsourcing the role asDMO, to commercial tourismorganisation. In
contrast to localgovernments, these tourismorganisationscanhavepayingpartners,and these
joined resources can then be used to market the destination. These types of destination
partnershipscanhaveotherobligationsthanmarketing,whichforexamplecanbenetworkcreation
among stakeholders, or product development. This example of a destination partnership is a
commercial one, but destination partnerships can also be non-profit, but in both scenarios the
arrangementismeantto“producebenefitsfortheDMOanditspartnersthatwouldnotbeachieved
without working together” (Morrison, 2013, p. 191). Nelson and Zadek (2000) describes
partnerships in tourism as: “Partnerships aremade up of people and organisations from some
combination of public, business and civil constituencies who engage in voluntary, mutually
beneficial, innovative relationships to address common societal aims through combining their
resourcesandcompetencies”(Nelson&Zadek,2000:InSvensson,NordinandFlagestad,2005:33).
Destination team-building refers to specific activities that a local government, or a commercial
DMO,canarrangetocreatecollaborationandpartnershipsbetweentourismactors.“Thereareso
many diverse tourism stakeholders in a destination that the DMO often has to be proactive in
bringinggroupsofspecificpeopletogethertodealwithparticularissuesoropportunities”(Morrison,
37
2013. P. 192). An example of this can workshops that encourage tourism actors to join in
partnershipstogainprofitfortheirbusinesses.Thetaskhereistointroducethetourismactorsto
each other, and get them to believe in what Morrison argues - “1+1 equals more than two”
(Morrison,2013,p.192).
A tourismdestinationoften involves complex tourismorganisations,withdifferentagendasand
theycaneitherbepublicorprivate.Inrelationtodestinationpartnerships,Rhodes(1997)argues
thattheissueisofteninteractionsbetweenpublicorganisationsandprivateones,whentryingto
establish collaboration. To successfully establish destination partnerships between public and
private tourismorganisations, "implies that neither governmentnorbusiness is in chargeof the
processbutthattheinterdependencybetweenthemmaybecrucial.Inlinewiththeaboveargument,
governanceimplieslesscontrolandpredictability,noself-evidentleadershipandnogivenhierarchy”
(Svensson,NordinandFlagestad,2005:32).Despitethecomplicationswiththeestablishmentof
destinationpartnership,theyhave“becomealabelonambitionstobringactorstogetherinnew
constellationsforthepurposeofjointproblemsolvingandpolicy-making”(ibid.).
Svensson, Nordin and Flagestad (2005) has outlined a conceptual framework for analysing
destinationpartnerships.Thethreeareaswhichmustbeaddressedare:
• “Inclusivenessconcernsthecapacityofpartnershipstowidentherangeofactorsinvolvedin
theprocessingofdestinationdevelopmentactivities.
o Who participates, which roles do they play, and on what basis is access to the
partnershipdecided?
• Accountability concerns the locationof responsibilityandthemechanismsthroughwhich
decisions-makersmaybeheldaccountable.
o Thisisahighlysensitiveissuethatmightthreatenthelegitimacyofpartnerships,and
thisiswherethedistinctionbetweenpublicandprivateismostevident,andalsomost
controversial.
• Coherence refers to the ability to gain support for a common outlook on destination
development and the mobilization of common resources for implementation of agreed
operations.
38
o Thepresenceofpartnershipsdoesnotguarantee that theymakeadifference, let
aloneaddvaluetotheprocess.”
(Svensson,NordinandFlagestad,2005:33)
Theindividualsthatarerepresentingtheirassociationororganizationinapartnershipornetwork,
areplayinganimportantrole.SelinandChavez(1994)foundduringtheirresearchaboutsuccessful
partnerships,thatpersonalcharacteristicswerehighlyimportantinacollaborativenetwork.Beside
the individual characteristics, the unique mix of personalities represented, can influence the
dynamicwithinthenetwork.Theyfurtherarguethatthatastrongleaderofthegroupisimportant
withqualitiessuchas:“motivation,commitment,enthusiasm,vision,patience,openmindedness,
perseverance, and an ability to get other people excited” (Selin and Chavez 1994: 8). Group
dynamicsisalsofoundtobeanimportantelementrelationtosuccessforapartnership.Thatthe
individualsare feelingwelcomedandaregettingalong,and there ishonesty,directnessandno
hidden agendas. The group furthermore needs to be able to “adjust to each other, and reach
consensusondifficultdecisions”(SelinandChavez1994:10).
Powerrelations
Actornetworkscan,asexplainedintheprevioussections,beahighlycomplexstructurewithmany
differentkindsofplayersinvolved.Tounderstandthecomplexityofatourismcollaborationandthe
challengesinvolvedincreatingandmaintainingit,itisindeedinterestingtogainaninsighttothe
powerrelationsbetweenactorswithinanetwork.
Throughthecourseofsocialsciencehistory,thedefinitionand influenceofthetermpowerhas
changedseveraltimes.Powerisatermthatthatisoftenviewedasastronginstitutionalforcethat
isexercisedoveraweakerbodyinanalmostphysicalandtangiblemanner.This,morephysicaland
authoritarianperspectiveonpower,wasexploredbyMaxWeber(Weberin:Månson,2007:100).
Power,accordingtoWeber,isoftenusedinbureaucracybypoliticiansorgovernmentofficialsto
gaininfluenceoverothersthroughlaw-makingandpolicyand“[…]Hewhoisactiveinpoliticsstrives
forpowereitherasameansinservingotheraims,idealoregoistic,oras‘powerforpower’ssake,’
thatis,inordertoenjoytheprestige-feelingthatpowergives.”(Weber,1921:2).
39
Tofurtherspecifythetermpowerandruleandinwhichformsandsituations it isperformedor
exercised,Weberdivideditintothreedifferentcategories:power,authorityanddiscipline(Månson,
2007:100).Authorityisexercisedbyhigherrankedinstitutions,entitiesorpersonsandismeasured
intheprobabilityforlowerrankedtodisplayobediencetotheirorders.Powerperformedthrough
authorityiswhatisseenaslegitimatebythesociety.Disciplineisamoreschematicandpromptly
way of showing obedience to commandments issued. Finally, power in any social relation, as
explainedabove,istheabilitytoenforceoneswillevenagainstthosewhoareshowingresistance.
Weber’sthoughtsandtheoriesmostlyevolvesaroundpowerinabureaucratic,governmentalor
politicalformwherekey-pointssuchasrules,lawsandregulationsareimportantfactors(Weber,
1921).
Inthestreamofpowertheoryevolvingaroundthemoretangibleaspectsofit,FrenchandRaven
(1959)suggestedatypologyofpersonalorinterpersonalpower.Thetypology,TheBasesofSocial
Power,consistsof5differentpowerstructures:Coercive,Reward,Legitimate,ExpertandReferent,
and“[…]inthistypology,socialinfluenceisdefinedasachangeinthebelief,attitude,orbehaviour
ofaperson–thetargetofinfluence,whichresultsfromtheaction,orpresence,ofanotherperson
orgroupofpersons[…]”(ErchulandRaven,1997:138).Thus,thetypologyisdescribingfivedifferent
powerstructuresthateachhasthepotentialtomakepersonAchangethebeliefsandbehaviourof
personB (ibid.). PersonAandPersonB iswhat FrenchandRavendescribes as, respectively an
influencingagentandatargetperson.
AsopposedtoWebersandFrenchandRavensalmostphysicalanddirectdefinitionsofpoweras
somethingthatcanbeachievedandexercisedby individualsorthestate,FrenchthinkerMichel
Foucaultpresentedaradicallydifferentangleonthesubject.Inthisdefinition,powerisaubiquitous
phenomenonthataffectsoureverydaylivesinwaysthatwearenotaware,andthatweoftenare
unable to control (Jiménez-Anca,2012). Foucaultexplainspowerasanunpredictable force that
appear in relationships and tensions between individuals, and unlike Webers theories, power
cannot be achieved and maintained because of its relative nature (Cheong and Miller, 2000;
Jiménez-Anca,2012).
40
Previouslyinthischapter,someofthemostimportantmainstreamsofpowertheorywithinsocial
sciencehavebeenpresented.FromWeber’spowerassomethingconcreteandFrenchandRavens
precise definitions of influence factors toMichel Foucault’s omnipresent power that influences
almostallaspectsoflife,ithasbeenestablishedthatthestreamsofresearchinthisarearepresents
differentstartingpoints.ItcanbearguedthattheFoucaultpresentsamorepositiveviewonthe
conceptofpowerinsociety,andthefactthatitiscreatedthroughsocialrelationsisseenmoreas
anadvantagethanadisadvantage(WearingandMcDonald,2010).
The first steps towards research on power relations in networks and between actors and
stakeholdersandtherealizationsoftheimportancethese,canbetracedbacktothefirsthalfofthe
20thcenturywiththebeginningofmanagementtheory.Earlyresearchwasmostlycentredaround
the internalstructuresoforganisationsandwhat internally influencedthepowerstructuresand
hierarchical foundations, but in the laterhalf of the centurymore recognitionwas given to the
externaldriversthatinfluencesthedevelopmentandsustainabilityofanorganisation.Inthelate
1970’sPfefferandSalacnik(2003)suggestedthatorganisationsoftenwereentangledinnetworks
ofinterdependenciesandsocialrelations,andthatquitealotofexternaldriversweredecisivefor
anorganisationsdecisionsanddevelopment.
Basedonnetworkrelationships,organisationaltheoryandpolicyplanning,severalresearchershave
sinceappliedandreviewedtheseaforementionedpowertheoriesandtypologiesinacontemporary
tourismcontext(CheongandMiller,2000;BramwellandMeyer,2007;Dredge,2006;Beritelliand
Laesser,2011).
CheongandMiller(2000)usedthetheoriesofMichelFoucaulttoexaminedifferentpowerlevelsin
tourism,andproposesthatFoucauldianpowerexistsinalltourismsystems.Thetourist,thetourism
managementorganisationsandthelocalscanallbothbetargetsandagentsofpower,andthelevel
ofpowerrelationsisdynamicandareunderconstantchangethroughoutthedevelopingprocessof
atourismdestination.
In the contribution to the understanding of local network management and the blurred line
betweenpublicandprivatepartnerships,Dredge(2006)appliedaFoucauldianperspectiveon“[…]
41
howpowerrelationshavebeenimbeddedinthediscoursesbetweenactorsandagencies.”(Ibid.),
andamongotherpointsconcludedthatthepowerandinfluenceofastakeholderoractormayvary
inaccordancetothenumberofnetworkstheyareamemberorapartof.Additionally,anemphasis
ison“[…]investigatingthe‘softer’andlesstangiblesocialandculturalaspectsofnetworksthrough
in-depthqualitativeinquiry.”(Ibid.)
Incontinuationofpolicynetworksresearchandthepowerrelationsthatlieswithin,Bramwelland
Meyer(2007)examinedthetourismpolicydevelopmentandpowerrelationsbetweenactorson
the East German island Rügen during a 10-year period during the integration to the unified
Germany.Theyargue that“[…]whilepower isperformedandcannot simplybe ‘possessed’, the
actorsconcernedmayperceiveittobesomethingthatpeopleeitherhaveorlack.”(ibid.)Intheir
researchtheyconcludedthatactorssuchasthedestinationmanagementorganisationoftheisland
werenotperceivedbyotheractorstobeas influentialasonemightthink.BramwellandMeyer
(ibid.) also concluded that someof themost influential actors in thedestination sharedmutual
membershipsoforganisationsornetworks.
Basedonresearchconductedonatourismnetwork inanalpinetouristdestinationBeritelliand
Laeser(2011),suggestedatypologyofpowerdimensionthatcanbeappliedwheninvestigatingthe
perceiving of influence reputation among actors in a network.With inspiration from literature
withinthefieldofnetworkandorganisationtheoryandexistingpowerrelationstheory,Beritelli
andLaesser(ibid.)presentedatypologyconsistingoffourdifferentdimensionsofpowerthatcan
bevaluablewheninvestigatingrelationsbetweenactorsinatourismnetwork.Thefourdimensions;
‘Hierarchy’, ‘Process power’, ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Assets’ each represent areas inwhich the actors
perceiveeachother’sinfluencereputationandpowerinthenetwork.
• The hierarchical dimension represents a belief that the higher a stakeholder or actor is
placedinthehierarchy,themorepowerandinfluencetheyhave.
• Processpowerisavariablethattakesintoconsiderationanactor’s“[…]positioninaspecific
process/mechanism[…]”(ibid.:1302)thatotheractorsinanetworkmightnotpossess,thus
placingthemhigheronthescaleofinfluencereputation.
42
• Theknowledgedimensionleansalittletowardtheprocesspower,withtheexceptionthat
itbasedmoreontheexpertise,skillsandknowledgeofindividualinanetwork.
• Thelastdimension,‘Assets’,isthemosttangibleoneinthesensethatitismeasuredonan
actor’spossessionofassetssuchas;land,propertiesandfinancialstate.
Intheircasestudyonactors’perceptionofeachother’sinfluencereputationinthealpinetourist
destinationtheyusedthefourpowerdimensionsinqualitativeinterviews.Respondentswereasked
toidentifythemostimportantandinfluentialactorsinthenetwork,andwasfurthermoreaskedto
namethepowerdimensionordimensionsthatwerecrucialtotheirchoice.BeritelliandLaesser
(ibid.) concluded thatknowledgewas themostdominatingpowerdimension in thedestination,
because respondents valued the importance of other actors’ ability to contribute to tourism
developmentandinnovationinthedestination.
Anotherpossiblewayofmeasuringanactororstakeholderspowerlevelandinfluenceinanetwork
areby lookingatthe levelofthreattheyexposetothenetwork(SheehanandRitchie,2005). In
Sheenan and Ritchies (ibid.) study, amore tangible and ‘hard’ definition of power is used and
actors/stakeholderswithmoreassetsandkey-resourcesareseenasabiggerthreat,andthushave
morepower,thanthesmalleroneswithinanetwork.
During the last coupleofdecades, the conceptofpowerhasbecomean increasingly important
subject in tourism research and further within the concepts of network relations, policy and
development. Especially a Foucauldianviewofubiquitouspower creating in social relationshas
gained recognition and acceptance among tourism researchers (Dredge, 2006; Bramwell and
Meyer,2007;CheongandMiller,2000;WearingandMcDonald,2010).
Inthisthesis,powerrelationstheorywillbeusedtogainanunderstandingofrelationsbetween
tourismactorsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse,theLTO’s,thelocalgovernmentandtheirpositioning
inrelationtoeachother,thetourismassociationsandthelocalgovernment.TheFoucauldianview
ofpowerwillbetakenintoconsiderationwhenlookingforunderlyingmeaningsandthe“[…]way
differentplayersconstructandcommunicatetheirownandothers’positionsandthewayinwhich
power relations have been embedded in the discourses betweenactors and agencies.” (Dredge,
43
2006:273).Furthermore,byapplyingthethoughtsandideasbehindBeritelliandLaesser’s(2011)
powerdimensionframework,wemightbeabletogainamorethoroughunderstandingofhowthe
actorsandLTO’sperceiveeachother,andespecially,howtheyperceivethebiggertourismnetwork
facilitatorssuchasSlagelsemunicipalityandVisitVestsjællandandhowthesepowerdimensionsare
influencingthedevelopmentoftourismcollaborations.
44
Analysis
Thepurposeofthefollowingchapteristopresenttothereadertheanalyticalfindingsthathasbeen
derivedfromthequalitativeempiricaldatacollection.Aspresentedinthemethodologychapter,
the qualitative data has been collected through an observation study of a municipal tourism
workshopandsevensemi-constructedinterviewswithactorsacrossthedestination.Basedonthe
theoreticalconsiderationspresentedinthepreviouschapter,theempiricalresultswillbeputina
relevanttheoreticalperspectiveinordertogainanunderstandingofhowtourismcollaborations
are understood andused in themunicipality of Slagelse andwhyprevious attempts have been
unsuccessful.
The analysis structure is inspiredbyDredges suggestiononhow to approach andunderstanda
network(Dredge,2006.P.271-274).Firstly,theinterestingmaintourismactorsinrelationtothe
research question and their strategies are looked in to. Secondly, the focus will be at the
collaboration between these major tourism actors, and how their approach is in relation to
collaboration ingeneral. Thirdly, itwillbe interestingto investigatehowcollaborationbetween
these actors are influencing collaboration in the rest of the tourism network. Fourthly, in the
discussion,thefindingsandimplicationswillbefurtherdiscussedinrelationtothetheoreticalfield.
Theapproachtotourismcollaborationfromnationalleveltolocallevel
Thefirstpartoftheanalysiswillpresenttothereaderalookathowtourismcollaborationsarea
partofthetourismstrategiesfromthenationalleveltothelocallevel.Forthefurtheranalysis,by
drawingona theoretical fieldwithinpolicyplanningand stakeholdernetworks, it is relevant to
investigatehowtheconceptoftourismcollaborationsareencouragedonanationallevel,andhow
itisfurtherincorporatedandcarriedoutatdestinationleveltothelocallevel.
Collaborationcanbeonmanydifferentlevels(Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010),and
cancomeinmanydifferentforms.Thissectionintenttogainanunderstanding,ofhowandifthe
national tourism strategy is can be argued to be a part of an intercededmultileveled strategy
(Haugland,Ness,Grønseth&Aarstad,2010:p.274-280).This isdone in relation towhatstated
before,thatcollaborationsareonmanylevels,andisthereforeinterestingtoseeifthenational
45
tourismstrategycanbeseenthroughthesystem,allthewaytothesmalldestinationsatthelocal
level.
Firstly,thispartoftheanalysiswillstartfromthetoplevelwiththenationaltourismstrategy,and
thenmove on to KL – Kommunernes Landsforening (Local Government Denmark), which is an
organisationformedbyallthemunicipalitiesinDenmark.Thiswillgiveafoundationofknowledge
to further understand how the concept of tourism collaborations are incorporated in The
MunicipalityofSlagelse’stourismstrategy.
TheDanishGovernment’stourismstrategy
Danish and international tourists spend around 95 billion Danish kroner in 2014, and fulltime
employed around 115.000 people, which means tourism has a massive effect on the Danish
economy.TheDanishgovernmentpublished“DenmarkinGrowth–TheNationalTourismStrategy”
(appendix J) in September 2014, which is the national strategy on how to develop the Danish
tourismindustry.
WhatthegovernmenthassetasDenmark’sstrengthpositionswhenitcomestoattractingtourists,
iscoastalandnaturetourism,urbantourism,meetingandbusinesstourism.
The National Tourism Forum is a tourism organization, which board members are leading
stakeholders in the Danish tourism industry, is one of the initiatives from the strategy. In the
strategy,TheNationalTourismForum’sresponsibilityaredescribed,andtheycanbeperceivedas
anationalDMO,withthepurposeofleadingtourismdevelopmentfromthenationallevel.Their
responsibilitiesarebeingdescribedas:
“The National Tourism Forum will strengthen the coordination of public tourism
development, and cooperation between VisitDenmark and the three tourism
developmentcompanies.Withafocusingondevelopingcoastalandnaturetourism
development,urbantourism,businessandmeetingtourisminDenmark,will leadto
benefitforthetotalgrowthinDanishtourism”
(AppendixJ,DenmarkinGrowth–TheNationalTourismStrategy–2016.P.7)
46
The primary responsibility in relation to tourism development andmarketing, is carried out by
tourismorganizations,whicharefinanciallysupportedbythegovernment.ThisiswhatMorrison
(2013)termsDestinationPartnerships,wheretourismstakeholdersjointogetherinapartnership,
because as he puts it “1+1 equals more than two” (Morrison, 2013, p. 192). One of these is
organizations created from a partnership is VisitDenmark, which main objective is to attract
internationaltourists.VisitDenmarkhasmanysmallerpartnersatthedestinationlevel,forexample
VisitVestsjælland,whichcanbecategorizedasoneoftheDMO’sinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.
Thenationaltourismstrategyemphasisalotonpublic/privatecollaborations.“Clearprioritiesand
enhanced cooperation between public actors and private tourism companies, should promote
synergyandefficientuseofresources,andincreasethepublictourismdevelopment’srelevancefor
privatetourismcompanies”(AppendixJ,DenmarkinGrowth–TheNationalTourismStrategy2016:
6). Different scholars have also mentioned how development emerge by join resources and
competencesincollaborativenetworks(JamalandGetz,1995:LankfordandHoward,1994:Gray
1989:JamalandStronza,2009:Morrison,2013).
Relevanttothissectionoftheanalysisisthegovernment’sviewoncollaborationfromthenational
leveltothelocallevel.ThisiswhatHaugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad(2010)describesasmulti-
leveledstrategy,wherethestrategycanbeseenthroughthewholetourismsystem.
“Coordinationofpublictourismdevelopmenteffortshasbeenstrengthenedwiththe
establishment of the National Tourism Forum, and the three tourism development
companies. But there is still potential in improving and focusing cross-border
cooperation between state, regional, municipal and local actors, e.g. through the
establishmentofbindingpartnerships,sotherewillbeachievedthegreatestpossible
effect of the deposited funds. It is also central that public/private partnerships are
continuouslydevelopedandinnovated”.
(AppendixJ,DenmarkinGrowth–TheNationalTourismStrategy2016:29)
KLhasacentralroleinimplementationoftheDanishtourismstrategyatthemunicipalitylevel,and
isthelinkbetweenthegovernmentandthelocalgovernments,sotheanalysisofstrategieswillnow
continuebylookingatKL’sperceptionofhowcollaborationshouldinfluencetourismdevelopment.
47
KL–LocalGovernmentDenmark
As argued by scholars such as Long, (1994) Elliot, (1997)Godfrey, (1998) andHall (1998), local
governmentsarebecomingmoreandmoreinvolvedintourismplanninganddevelopment.Thisis
alsothecaseatthelocalgovernmentofSlagelse,butbeforetouchinguponthedestinationlevel,a
closer look at a reportmade by KL is relevant. KL is a Danish interest organisation, which is a
collaborationbetweenDenmark’s98municipalities.Theorganization’smission is tosupport the
common interests of the municipalities, and to contribute in helping the municipalities solve
administrativeandpolitical task in thebestpossibleway.Furthermore,KL isplaying the roleas
negotiator between the local governments and the Danish government, where economic
negotiationsaretheprimaryfocus(kl.dk,27/4-2017).
KLismakinganalysesandsuggestionsonmanyareasthatareofinteresttolocalgovernments,and
tourism is one of these areas. In September 2016, KL published an article concerning how
collaborationinthetourismsectorisnecessarytogainsuccess.
“Growth inDanishtourismdemandsthatwestrengthenpublic-privatecooperation.
Weneedtobebetteratcoordinatingandlinkingourinvestmentssothatwemakethe
mostofthefundsweeachinvestincreatingattractiveoffersforthetourists.”
(kl.dk,27/4-2017).
Followingthearticlecamethereport,AttractiveDestinations–TourismPolicySuggestionsforLocal
Governments (Appendix K, Attractive Destinations – Tourism Policy Suggestions),which lists six
differentsuggestionsonhowlocalgovernmentscanboosttourismatthedestinationlevel.
1. Strongdestinations–“Collaborateonsupportingtourisminitiativesandinvestinthestrong
Danishdestinations.”
2. Newopportunitiesforcoastalandnaturetourism–“Tomakeuseofthenewopportunities
inthelawtoimprovethequalityofthecoastaltourismproductsinclosecooperationwith
localactors.”
3. Digital tourist information – “Marketing is based on the destinations attractions and is
closelycoordinatedwiththetourismindustry”
48
4. Culture and events as drivers of growth – “Linking cultural institutions' experience
productionwithproductdevelopmentinprivatetourismcompaniesanddojointmarketing”
5. Competitive companies – “Collaborate across using business tourism to strengthen the
competitiveness of Danish strength positions, focusing on attracting international
investmentandlabour”.
6. Strengthen collaborations with the tourism industry – “Set goals for the physical
developmentoftheDanishdestinationsincooperationwiththetourismindustry.Workon
developing cooperation between municipalities, landowners and professions that can
increaseinvestmentandtherebyliftthetourismproduct”
(AppendixK,AttractiveDestinations–TourismPolicySuggestions)
Thisisaverybriefresumeofthesixsuggestions,butwhatisinterestingistheunderlinedkeywords.
These words like collaborate, cooperation, coordinate and joint, gives a strong indication that
collaborationandpartnershipsisaconceptwhichbenefitsarewellrecognizedfromhighupinthe
tourismorganizationsystem.Thequestioniswhetherornotthenationallevelunderstandswhatit
requires from the destination level to carry out thesewell-meaning strategies and suggestions,
becauseitiseasyfromthenationalleveltoadvocatecollaborationissuchanunspecificmanner,
withoutaconcreteimplementationstrategy.
Thesixsuggestionsspanwideinrangeinrelationtofocusandstrategy,buttheyhaveallincommon
thattheycanboosttourism.Morrison’s(2013)suggestionsonwherecollaborationandpartnership
willvalueadestination,linkscloselytothesesuggestionsaswell.Hearguesthatmarketing,product
development,planningandcommunityrelations,allcangainfromworkingtogetherandcoordinate
(Morrison2013:193).JamalandGertz(1995)alsoarguesthatwhenatourismstrategyfocuseson
involvinglocalstakeholders,bothprivateresidentsandbusinesscommunity, itcancontributeto
betterpublic/privaterelationship,andmakethedevelopmentprocessatadestinationgoeasier
(Jamal&Gertz,1995).
Collaborations and partnerships are being taken seriously by the Danish local government
organisation,KL,sowhatisnowinterestingtoinvestigateishowcollaborationsandpartnershipsis
approachbythelocalgovernmentofSlagelse.
49
ThelocalgovernmentofSlagelse
“Localgovernmentsinmanycountriesarebecomingincreasinglyinvolvedinavariety
of activities to boost tourism, including destinationmarketing, strengthening local
tourism industrynetworks,andoffering incentives inorder toattract investment in
newtourismdevelopment”
(Long,1994;Elliot,1997;Godfrey,1998;Hall,1998:InDredge,2001:356)
Alocalgovernmenthastheresponsibilityofmanyelementsregardingadestination,whichincludes
manydepartmentswithinthelocalgovernment(Dredge,2001).Itisonlyonedepartmentwithin
thelocalgovernmentofSlagelse,theCulture,LeisureandTourismdepartment,whichdirectlyhas
tourism as focus area, but tourism development demands cooperation among almost every
department.This,ofcause,makesthetourismplanninganddevelopmentacomplexedtask,anddo
callforsuccessfulcollaborationstoreachobjectives.TheCulture,LeisureandTourismdepartment,
willfromnowonbereferredtoasthetourismdepartment,sincethatisthedepartmentwithinthe
departmentthatisworkingwithtourismrelatedprojects.
VisitDenmarkis,asmentionedinthenationaltourismstrategy,anationalpartnershipcreatedby
thegovernment, todo tourismdevelopmentat thenational level.Adestinationpartnership,as
Morrison(2013)callsit,isalsoestablishedondestinationlevelsalloverDenmark,andSlagelseis
notanexception.VisitVestsjælland(visitvestsjaelland.dk,28/4-2017)isapartnershipbetweenthe
threemunicipalitiesofSlagelse,KalundborgandSorø,whichprimaryresponsibility isto leadthe
tourismdevelopment.ThelocalgovernmentofSlagelseispaying4millionDanishkronerayearto
VisitVestsjælland, which is described as binding partnerships in the Danish tourism strategy
(AppendixJ,DenmarkinGrowth–TheNationalTourismStrategy2016:29).Accordingtothe2017
agreement between the three municipalities and VisitVestsjælland, it is expected that
VisitVestsjællandtakesonthefollowingtasks:
• “To facilitate themeeting across actors and partners, to develop products and package
tourismproducts
50
• Toundertakeallexternalmarketingofthetotaldestination
• Tosupportprofessionalizationof theactorsandcommercializationof theproducts in the
destination
• Providinganattractive,inspiring,user-friendlyandupdatedplatform(visitvestsjælland.dk)
availabletoactors,touristsandpotentialtourists
• Being a trustworthy partner for tourism associations, city offices, tourist inspections and
relevantlocalnetworks
• Tobeapartofthemarketingofsingleandrecurringevents,thatcanattractparticipantsor
touristsfromalargergeographicalarea
• Beingthecommonknowledgeresourceregardingtourism
• Toparticipateinrelevantnationalandregionalcollaborationsandnetworks”
(AppendixH,AgreementwithVisitVestsjælland:1)
An organization like VisitVestsjælland has, in contrast to a political organization like a local
government,thepossibilitytohavepayingpartners/members.Boththenationaltourismstrategy
andthetourismdevelopmentsuggestionsbyKL,isadvocatingtheneedofjoiningresourcestostand
stronger,andtoquoteMorrison(2013)again–“1+1equalsmorethantwo”(Morrison,2013:192).
ByhavingVisitVestsjælland’spartnerscontributetoajointmarketingcollaboration,themarketing
effortismuchmorelikelytoreachfar,andattractingmoretouriststothedestination.
ThethreelocalgovernmentsdoalsohaveresponsibilitiesinthepartnershipwithVisitVestsjælland:
• “Toactivelyparticipateinjointownershipandcontributetostrengtheningandcooperation
• TosupporttheeffortsandobjectivesoftheVisitVestsjælland'sstrategy
• Toactasalinkbetweenthelocalactorsandthecompany.
• Tosupportallparties'understandingofresponsibilitydistribution
• EncourageactorstouseKultunaut(kultunaut.dk)asacommonplatformforallevents”
(AppendixH,AgreementwithVisitVestsjælland:1)
VisitVestsjællandhas in thebeginningof2017publishedtheirstrategy,andthe fourmain focus
areasofthestrategyis:
• “Bettercollaborationinthedestinationacrosstourismactorsandmunicipalities
51
• Network,businessandproductdevelopmentintheindustryinlinewiththedestinationbrand
• Betterutilization,increasedcapacityandqualityoftheaccommodations
• Brandingandmarketingofthetotaldestination”
(AppendixL,VisitVestsjælland-2017Strategy:8)
TheDevelopmentDepartmentwithinthelocalgovernmentofSlagelsehasdevelopedafour-year
plan, regarding Tourism Policy Consideration (AppendixM, Tourism Policy Considerations). The
report’sobjectiveistodeterminewhattourisminitiativesisrelevantoverthenextfouryears.This
cannotbecategorizedasatourismstrategy,butitismorefunctioningasastatementofintent.The
reasonthatareportlikethisismadeinpoliticalorganisations,isthatfutureprojectismuchmore
likelytobeapprovedbythecitycouncil, ifthecitycouncilearlierhasacceptedareport,arguing
thattheseinitiativesmightberelevantinthefuture.
“Thecoordinatedeffortsandcooperationbetweentourismactorsinthemunicipality
must be strengthened. Thismeans that effective value chainsmust be established
betweentransport,accommodation,dining,trade,attractionsandevents.Thesevalue
chains are embodied in business concepts that can create comprehensive package
solutions for tourists. In2016, themunicipalityof Slagelsehas initiated thegrowth
initiative"coastalandnaturetourism"tostrengthenthattourismsegment.”
(AppendixM,TourismPolicyConsiderations:5)
TheTourismPolicyConsiderationreport isnotofficialyet,but ithasbeenapprovedby theCity
CouncilofSlagelse,andwillbeofficiallypublishedinAugust2017.Again,thecollaborationbetween
public and private actors is a key element, as we saw in the national tourism strategy, KL’s
suggestionontourismdevelopment,andthedestinationpartnership(Morrison,2013)betweenthe
threemunicipalitiesandVisitVestsjælland.
Asmentionedabove,oneof the focuspointsover thenext twoyears is thecoastalandnature
tourismproject,launchedin2016.Itisthetourismdepartmentthatareworkingwiththisproject,
withPukKirkeskovHvistendal asproject leader.As a sidenote, the coastal andnature tourism
projectiswhereChristoffer(oneoftheresearchers)isemployedasaparttimestudentemployee.
52
Thecoastalandnaturetourismproject’svisionistocommunicatethemanyexperiencesthe180-
km long coastline provide in municipality of Slagelse. The goal is to create collaboration and
developmentacrosstourismactorsandactivities,thatwillendinbookableexperiencesthateasily
canbe communicated to thepotential tourists. Theproject runsover a 3-yearperiod, andwas
launchedin2016.PukandChristofferbecameapartoftheprojectfromthestartof2017.
Thefivemainthemesoftheprojectare:
• Natureexperiences
• Bodyandmind
• Culinaryexperiences-locallyproducedfood
• Activeholiday
• Theseaandthecoast
(AppendixN,CoastalandNatureTourism:1)
As a department within the local government, the project cannot create commercial tourism
products,butthestrategyistocreatepartnershipsandcollaborationsbetween“large,aswellas
smalltourismactors,andmusthelpcreatecohesioninthetourismindustry.Aconnectionthatis
expressed in the way TheMunicipality of Slagelse ismarketed as an active and scenic tourism
destination”(AppendixN,CoastalandNatureTourism:8).
Most of the work done with this project can be seen as what Morrison (2013) describes as
DestinationTeam-building,becausewhatPukandChristofferisdoingarefacilitationofmeetings
and workshops, where the objective is to create the right environment for tourism actors to
cooperateandcreatepartnerships.Thespecific initiativesdone through theCoastalandNature
Tourism-projectwillbeanalysedlater.
TourismassociationswithinthedestinationofSlagelse
VisitVestsjælland is a commercial organisation with paying partners, who does tourism
developmentandtourismmarketingfortheirpartners.Whatcanbearguedtobeaside-effectof
that partnership between the local government and VisitVestsjælland, is that VisitVestsjælland
mainlyareworkingfortheirpartners,meaningthatyoumustbeapartnertogetthebenefitsof
promotiontopotentialtourist.
53
WithinthemunicipalityofSlagelsethereisthreetourismassociations,whicheachareanetworkof
tourismactorsinSlagelse,KorsørandSkælskør.Thesedestinationpartnerships(Morrison,2013),
are runbyvolunteer tourism individuals,whoallareusing their free time to tryandbetter the
collaborationintheirlocaldestination.TheycanbecategorisedasaLTO,localtourismorganisation,
whichisatermusedbyDredge(2013)todescribealocaltourismdevelopmentgroup.Eachofthe
touristassociationshasthedisposaloftourismfundsgivenbythelocalgovernment,andhasthe
responsibilityofgrantingtourisminitiativesafinancialsupport.
Manyof theboardmembersofeach tourist associationsarepensioners,whichmeans that the
averageageisquitehigh.Thismaybeinfluencingthelevelofcollaborationbetweenthethree,as
manyofthemwasalsomembersbeforethemergingofthethreeoldmunicipalitiesin2007.Thisis
subjectofinterestthatwillbetoucheduponandexaminedlaterintheanalysis.
Even though they might not see themselves as direct stakeholders in tourism, the business
associations in Slagelse, Korsør and Skælskør, does also play a role as non-profit tourism
organisations.Theyarethevoiceofthelocalbusinessowners,butmosttheofbusinessesarenot
directlyinvolvedwithtourism.Thiscaninfluencetheirwillingnesstocooperate,sincetheymight
havedifficultiesseeinghowtourismcancontribute togeneratinggrowth,whichalso in theend
affectsthem.
ThestrategyfromBusinessSlagelse,whichisthebusinessassociationinSlagelse,doestouchupon
tourismandcollaboration.
• “We ensure growth in Slagelse city and in The Municipality of Slagelse, by attracting
customers/tradersandguests/touriststothearea
• We optimize cooperation between companies, organizations, schools, associations and
SlagelseMunicipality”
(business-slagelse.dk,2/5-2017)
Subconclusion–Officialtourismstrategiesfromthenationleveltothelocallevel
Haugland, Ness, Grønseth and Aarstad (2010) argues that there are three main levels, the
actor/local level, thedestination levelandthe largergeographical level,andforthatreason it is
important to incorporate an integrated multileveled strategy (Haugland, Ness, Grønseth and
54
Aarstad,2010).Throughtheaboverun-throughofstrategiesfromgovernmenttourismstrategy,
KL’s tourism strategy and the local government’s strategy, there is a red line in relation to
partnershipsandcollaboration.
AccordingtoHaugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad(2010),tourismmustbeapproacheddifferently
atdifferentlevels,andwhenlookingatthestrategiestheybecomemorespecific,theclosertothe
locallevelitgets.
Oneofthecommonthemeswhenlookingatall thestrategies iscollaborationandpartnerships.
Both the government strategy and KL’s strategy are stressing the importance of destination
partnerships(Morrison,2013)andbindingpartnerships,whichhasbecomeapartofthestrategy
fromthe localgovernmentofSlagelse,byco-creationVisitVestsjælland.Thepartnership iswhat
Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad(2010)termsinter-destinationbridgeties,sinceitstretches
across the municipality border by being a partnership with the municipalities of Sorø and
Kalundborg.KLsuggestthatjoiningresourcesinapartnershiplikeVisitVestsjælland,willmakethe
destinationstandstrongerinacompetitivetourismmarket.
Coastal andnature tourism seems tobewhere thegovernmentandKL seespotential, and this
strategy is adoptedby the local governmentof Slagelse.Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad
(2010) argues that by incorporate a destination image and brand, and channelling distributed
resourcesandcompetenciestowardsadestination’sstrengthpositions,itwillleadtodestination
development.
Through the coastal and nature tourism project, the local government of Slagelse is trying to
coordinatetourisminitiativesatthedestinationlevelandthelocallevel.Thestrategyistointegrate
localactorsinnetworks,whichthencanleadtotourismproductsforthetourists.
55
Asmentioned,thelocalgovernmentofSlagelsedoesnotatthispointhaveatourismstrategyfor
thefuture,butdohavetourismpolicyconsiderationconcerningwhattofocuson.Asseenabove
however(figure1),tourismdevelopmentisgoingonatdifferentlevels,wherethetourisminitiatives
have inter-destinationtiestobothneighbourmunicipalitiesandnational tourismstrategies.The
threetourismassociationshavecreatedlocalcollaborationnetworks,andcollaborationbetween
localactorsisafocusareawithinthecoastalandnaturetourismproject.
Tourism collaboration seems to be of great importance for both the local government,
VisitVestsjælland,thetouristassociationsandthebusinessassociations,butwhatisnowinteresting
toinvestigateishowwellthecoordinationandcollaborationisbetweentheseorganizations.The
collaborationbetweenthesecaninfluencehowtourismactorsperceivethetourismdevelopment
withinthedestination.
Figure2Integratedmultileveledstrategy(Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010:p.280)
Anupcomingtourismstrategyforthemunicipalityof
Slagelse
LocalTouristassociationsCreationofcollaborationbetweentourismactors
VisitVestsjællandandadaptationofCoastalandNatureTourism
CoastalandNatureTourism
56
ThenextsectionwilllookattheinitiativesdonebythelocalgovernmentofSlagelse,especiallythe
coastalandnaturetourismproject,toencouragecollaborationbetweentourismactors,bothpublic
andprivate.
Thetourismdepartment’sapproachtoencouragetourismcollaboration
Inthispartoftheanalysis,acloserlookatthemethodsusedbythetourismdepartmenttocreate
collaborationamongactors,willbepresented.Throughsemi-constructedinterviewswithactorsin
themunicipality,andanobservationstudyofaworkshop,wehavegainedinsightuponhowthe
tourismdepartmentareattemptingtoraisethelevelofcollaborationbetweentourismactorsand
what instruments(Dredge,2016)theyareusing intheencouragementprocess.Morrison(2013)
arguesthat“therearesomanydiversetourismstakeholdersinadestinationthattheDMOoften
hastobeproactiveinbringinggroupsofspecificpeopletogethertodealwithparticularissuesor
opportunities”(Morrison,2013.P.192).
Workshop–Observationstudy
OnMarchthe24th2017,thetourismdepartmentofSlagelse’scoastalandnaturetourismproject,
incollaborationwithLandudviklingSlagelse(LAG)andthethreetourismassociations,facilitateda
tourismworkshop.Theworkingtitleoftheworkshopandthemainthemewas“Howdowecreate
betterconditionsfortourisminthelocalareathroughcollaboration?”,anditwasattendedby82
guestsrepresentingdifferentactorscomingfromvariousplacesinthemunicipality.Asmentioned
inthemethodologychapter,theactorsrepresentedattheworkshopwasmainlycentred inand
aroundthethreelargestcitiesinthemunicipality:Korsør,SlagelseandSkælskør,andwithafew
comingfromoutsidethoseareas.
Timelineandinterestingobservations
The flow and timeline of the workshop was following a tight schedule, with the chairman of
LandudviklingSlagelse,TroelsBrandtasamoderator.Hestartedtheworkshopbyholdingatspeech
aboutthetourismsituationinthemunicipalityandwhichdirectionLandudviklingSlagelsewantit
togo.Hespokeaboutthefundsthatactorsinthemunicipalityhavetheopportunitytoapplyfor,
and informedabout themore technicaldetailsof theapplicationprocess.Most interestinglyhe
57
emphasisedthathepreferstobeworkingwithsmallergrassrootsprojectsintourism,ratherthan
“bigandshinytourismplans”.Itseemedlikehetriedtostartoffonagoodnote,andbyproviding
theservicebyexplainingtheapplicationprocess,andshowinghisinterestinthesmallertourism
actors present, to show them that LAG sees their place in the “collective responsibility for the
ongoingdirectionofthedestination”(Gray1989:236).
Thefirstpartoftheworkshopwasdedicatedtothepresentationofnewinitiativesandprojects
whichallhavereceivedfundingfromLandudviklingSlagelse.JamalandStronza(2009)arguesthat
“identifying and sharing future collaborative interpretations; appreciating a sense of common
purpose” (Jamal&Stronza,2009). Alsopresentingwas thecoastalandnatureproject fromthe
municipalityofSlagelsewhichwaspresentedbyprojectleaderPukKirkeskovHvistendal.Shemade
atbriefpresentationofthethoughtsandideasbehindtheproject,andencouragedtheactorsat
theworkshoptosupportit,andthattheywerewelcometocontactheriftheyhadanyquestions
concerningtheproject.Shefurthermoreemphasised,thatinordertoreachthetourismpotential
ofthedestination,actorsmustuniteincollaborationsthatisnotonlylimitedtolocalareas,butalso
reaches beyond these. As she described in the interview, she saw different purposes with the
workshop,andoneof themwas tocommunicate thecoastalandnature tourismproject to the
tourismactors(AppendixG.PukKirkeskovHvistendal,Projectleader–CoastalandNatureTourism,
00:04:44.01).Shetherebyusedtheworkshopasaninformationinstrument(Dredge,2016).
Following thepresentationbyPukKirkeskovHvistendal, theactingdirectorofVisitVestsjælland,
AnetteMoss,askedpermissiontospeak.SheexplainedthatVisitVestsjællandwerethereforthe
actors,andthattheywilldowhattheycantohelpmakethemmorevisible.Shespokeinalowand
nervoustoneandpeoplepresentwerecomplainingthattheycouldnothearwhatshewassaying.
AnetteMossdidnotpresent anythingnew initiativesorprojects, but insteadusedher timeon
speakingabout the importanceof creatinggrowth in tourism in thedestination,and that if the
tourismactorshaveanygoodideas,theyarealwayswelcometocontactVisitVestsjælland.Thatlast
remarkinterestinglyseemedtoprovokesomedeepsighsamongsomeoftheaudienceintheroom.
JetteSøndergaard,theownerofHotelPostgaardeninSkælskør,whoweresittingoppositeusatour
tablewerealsoshakingherheadquietlyatthelastremark.Importantinrelationtothesenervous
58
andpoorlycommunicated inputsfromAnetteMoss, is it tosaythatVisitVestsjællandareatthe
momentlickingtheirwoundsafteraratherturbulenttime.ThedirectorofVisitVestsjællandover
thelastcoupleofyears,hadbeenabsentforthefewlastmonthsof2016,andwasdismissedin
December2016.AnetteMossthenbecamethetemporarydirector,arolesheclearlydoesnotfeel
comfortablein.IthasalsocoursedVisitVestsjællandtoneglectsomeresponsibilitiesinrelationto
their partners, which could be seen in the way some of the tourism actors responded to the
presentation.
Following the speech by Anette Moss, three other tourism actors each presented their
LandudviklingSlagelsefundedprojects:
• GerlevParkhaveinvestedinmakingsheltersforbicycletourists,andtheywereencouraging
othertourismactorstobooktheseandmakeuseofthem.
• GuldagergaardspokeabouttheCeramicsFestivalinSkælskørthattheyhavebeenfacilitating
forthe lastcoupleofyears.Thefestivalhasbeenanunexpectedsuccess,and isgrowing
biggereachyear.
• Ninjalandisafacilityforchildrenandchildishsouls.
The representative fromGerlevParkwas theonlyof the last threeproject-presentingactors to
includethesubjectofcollaboration.Maybebecauseofthis,TroelsBrandtofLandudviklingSlagelse
after the last presentations briefly mentioned the importance of contributing and sharing in a
network.
Duringthelastpresentations,italreadyseemedasifseveralpeopleintheaudiencewasbeginning
toloseinterestorfocus,andwasinsteadlookingattheirphonesorwhisperingwitheachother.The
plannedhalfhourbreakatthispointthereforeseemedtobewelcomedbymanyoftheattendees.
Afterthebreak,itwastimeforthelastsixprojectpresentations:
• OstebørsenisafarmanddairyinVemmelevwhichisspecialisinginusinglocalproductsof
thebestquality.
• Dybkærgaardhas a farm shop that is selling locally producedgoods and from their own
foundry.Theyarealsorentingoutbicyclestotourists.
59
• AveryenthusiasticmarinebiologistfromKorsørpresentsaprojectwheretouristsgetthe
opportunitytogetahands-onexperiencewiththewildlifeoftheGreatBelt.
• WinterbathingFestivalinKorsør.Asthenameimplies,thisisafestivalforwinterbathers
andtheyarehopingtohavemoretouristsvisiting.
• AgersøCulturalCentreispresentingthenewplansforguidedtoursontheislandofAgersø.
ThepresenteristhankingLandudviklingSlagelseforthefundsandfortheeasyapplications
process.
• PukHvistendalfromthemunicipalityisagainspeaking,andthistimemoreconcretelyabout
aprojectcalledBedandBike.Abicycle route that is running througha largepartof the
municipality.
AlotoftimewasusedonthesepresentationsofLAGfundedtourismactors,whichPerThuesen
fromthetourismassociationofSlagelseclearlydidnotlike:“Thenitturnsoutthatafourthofthe
meetingisusedonpresentingthefundedprojectsfromLandudviklingSlagelse!?Whatthehell is
that?So,itendedupwith2x20withtheworkstationrotationswheretheactorscouldtalkwith
eachother”(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation:00:22:39.00).Hefeltthatthe
presentations took toomuchof the time that could havebeenusedon creating collaborations
betweentourismactors.PerThuesensawtheworkshopasaninformationalinstrumentcarriedout
by Landudvikling Slagelse and the tourism department, but has originally hoped it as an
organizationalinstrument(Dredge,2016).IfwelinkthattowhatJetteSøndergaardsaid:
“Well,yougettheopportunitytogotoregionalmeetingsandworkshopsforfree,and
gainaccess tonew informationon the tourismarea.But I reallymiss somesortof
headlineforthesemeeting-oftentheyjustsaysomethinglike‘feelfreetobringalong
newideasandsuggestions’,butnothingevercomesoutofthis.”
(AppendixA,JetteSøndergaard,Postgaarden:00:19:14.05)
Firstly, this link to Jamal andGetz argumentabout “Collaboration for community-based tourism
planningwillrequireaperceptionthatdecisionsarrivedatwillbeimplemented”(JamalandGetz,
1995:198). Secondly, thepresentationswere inspiringand they showedhowtourism ideascan
becomeareality.Italsogavesomesortofguidancetotheworkshop,bythepresentationfromPuk
60
Kirkeskov Hvistendal telling the audience about the coastal and nature tourism project. It is
understandable that concrete collaborations do not emerge from sitting and listing to
presentations,butinspirationsismuchneededinadestinationthatsostronglyneedtolearnhow
tocollaborate.
Afterthepresentations, itwastimefortheworkshopparticipantstobedividedintofivegroups
withfiveworkstations,spreadevenoutintheouteredgesoftheroom.Thefivegroupswouldthen
begiven15minutesateachworkstationbeforerotatingontothenext.Therewasonlyplanneda
halfhour,sotourismactorshadonlytimetoattendtwooftheworkstations.Thethemesofthefive
workstationswere:
• Localfood
• Artcrafts
• Activeholiday
• Coastandwater
• Localhospitality
Duringtheserotations,insteadofattachingourselvestojustonegroup,wedecidedtodivideand
followdifferentgroupssowecouldgetafeelingoftheatmosphereamongthedifferentactors.We
noticedhowsomeactorswasabitmoreconcernedandcriticalofthetourismsituationintheregion
than we initially thought when the workshop began. At one of the workstations a group was
discussing their concerns about the increasing digitalisationof the tourism infrastructure in the
region.Theyweretalkingabouthowwebsitesandmobile-appshavebecomeprioritizedinfavour
ofthephysicalandtangiblebrochures,andhowtheyfeelthatthemunicipalityisneglectingthis
part.Duringtheworkstations,PukKirkeskovHvistendaltalktosomeladiesaboutthebenefitsof
TripAdvisor,andhowitisagoodplatformfortouriststolookupanattractionoranaccommodation.
Theladies,whowerearoundtheirsixties,didnotknowTripAdvisor,butdidatthesametimenotat
allseehowanyoneonewouldbeusingit,sincetheydidnotknowitthemselves.
Duringthepresentationsinthefirstpartoftheworkshoptherewasnotmuchinteractionbetween
theactors,andeventhoughthemoderatoronmanyoccasionsencouragedtheparticipantstoask
61
questions,mostofthemdidnotsayanything.Thereforitwasinterestingtonoticehowmanyof
them opened up and showed to have some strong opinions and ideas for improvement and
developmentinthetourismarea.Therewaslivelydiscussionabouteverythingfromhowtoimprove
thevisibilityofthesmallershopatthedestinations,tohowlocalartisansandfoodproducerscan
bemoreinvolvedintourism.
Itcanbearguedthattheworkstationswereopeninguptoomanyareastofocuson,forthetourism
actorstochanneltheircollaborativethoughts.Byhaving5workshopsdealingwithwidelydifferent
areas tocreatecollaborationaround,mayhaveresulted insporadic ideas fromdifferentactors.
Maybebyhavinganarrowerfocuspoint,itcouldhavesimplifiedthecollaborationprocess.
Picture2Tourismactorsgatheredatoneoftheworkstationsduringtherotations.(Source:Ownpicture)
At another workstation, we witnessed a heated debate, where the chairman of a local angler
associationinoneofthethreebiggercitiesseemedtobequitehot-headedaboutsomething.As
62
mentioned inthemethodologychapter,wespokewithagovernmentofficialduringdinnerwho
informedusthatthechairmanoftheanglerassociationwashavinganotheragendathantourism
development.Hewantedthemunicipalitytobememberafishingorganisationthatalsooperates
within the fieldof angler tourism.As amemberof thisorganisation, themunicipalitywouldbe
committing itself to keeping a high standard of its rivers and streams and thus improving the
conditionsforanglers.Thechairmanalsoarguedthatthefishingorganisationwouldbeabletodo
marketingforanglertourisminthemunicipality,wheretothegovernmentofficialnoted,thatsuch
a marketing agreement is already in place with VisitVestsjælland. The official implied that the
chairmanwasonlyseekingmembershipofthefishingorganisation,becauseitwouldimprovethe
anglerfishingconditionsforthelocals.
Accordingtothegovernmentofficial,itisnotuncommonthattheagendasofsomeoftheactors
aremoreconcerninglocalinterestsandbeneficialdevelopmentforthelocals,andthatatworkshop
issometimes,forsome,seenasagoodplacetodosomelobbyactivityinthatdirection.
Morrison(2013)describestheimportanceoftourismplannersinvolvingthelocalcommunityinthe
planningprocess,becauseitwillresultinlessissueswiththecommunity.Thisargumentcanalsobe
turnedaround,becausethelocalcommunitycanalsohavetheirownreasons,outsidetheofficial
agenda,fortakingpartininplanning,asshowninthisexample.Thisalsotellsussomethingabout
the “[…] complex relationships between local government, LTOs, industry and the community.”
(Dredge,2006:279)andthatstakeholderscanhavemembershipsofmorethanonenetwork(ibid.)
Inthiscasetherelationshipisevenfurthercomplicatedbyanactorwithanagendanotrelatedto
tourism,butinsteadmightbeexploitingthedevelopmentoftourismcollaborationstogainbenefits
forhisownorganisation.
Theworkstationrotationroundswerethelasteventoftheworkshop,anddinnerwasservedafter
that.Afterdinner,chairmanofLandudviklingSlagelseandmoderatoroftheevent,heldanending
speechwherehethankedtheparticipatingtourismactorsforagoodandprofitableworkshop.His
speech ended with him saying “[…] the ball is now thrown onto your half of the court.”, thus
indicatingthatitwasnowuptothetourismactorstobuildonthecollaborationsandrelationships
thathadbeencreatedduringtheworkshop.“’Feelfreetobringalongnewideasandsuggestions’,
butnothingevercomesoutofthis”(AppendixA,JetteSøndergaard,Postgaarden:00:19:14.05),as
63
JetteSøndergaardsaid.Thesecommentscomingfromtheprimarytourismstakeholders,cangive
thetourismactorsthefeelingthattheyfromnowonareresponsibleforbringingnewideas,butas
Per Thuesen argued, 2x20 minutes cannot change the tourism actors’ competences. Jette
Søndergaardfurtherdescribedherfeelingabouttheseworkshops:
“IparticipatedinameetingthatVisitVestsjællandhadarrangedforthetourismactors
intheregion,andwedidnotreceiveany"concreteinformation"atall.Insteadthey
wantedustowritedowninputs,butinputsforwhat?!Itwasoneofthesemeetings
that I would call a ‘nonsense meeting’ where nothing concrete comes out of it.”
(AppendixA,JetteSøndergaard,Postgaarden:00:40:44.00)
AccordingtoJetteSøndergaard,thisisexactlywhatalwayshappensatthemeetingsorworkshops
–theyarefilledwithgoodintentionsandtheparticipatorsarebringingupalotofideas,butthey
areneverfollowedupbyanyone,thustheyarestartingoverateachmeeting.Thisleadsbackto
what Jamal and Getz (1995) argues: “Collaboration for community-based tourism planning will
requireaperceptionthatdecisionsarrivedatwillbeimplemented”(JamalandGetz,1995:198).
Outcomesoftheworkshop
Thispartoftheanalysissectionwillanalyseupontheoutcomesofthetourismworkshopdescribed
above.Asnotedintheabovesection,weobservedhowtheactorsindifferentsituationsinteracted
differently,andespeciallyduringtheworkstationrotations,dialoguebetweenthemwaslivelyand
alotofideasforimprovementandnewinitiativeswaswrittendownonthewhiteboards.Butone
thingisthegoodintentionsandideas,anotherthingishowtheoutcomeis,andifitinrealitycreates
collaboration among the actors. According to Morrison (2013), the tourism workshop can be
categorisedasameasureininternaldestinationteambuilding.Adevelopmentinitiativelikethat,
should often be carried out by a strong DMO, with the ability to encourage partnerships and
collaborationsamongactors.Throughtheinterviewswithactorsinthedestination,itbecameclear
thattherearewidelydifferentattitudestowardshowsuchworkshopscouldbenefitthedestination.
A tourism actor who find herself benefiting from the workshops is Susanne Andersen from
Dybkærgaard, who showed a remarkably more positive attitude towards the than Jette
64
Søndergaard.AtDybkærgaard theyhave just recently,during the last coupleofyears,begun to
engagethemselvesintourismactivitiesandassheexplains:
“[…]becauseasanewcomer in tourism, it is nice tohave someguidance.And the
workshopshavealsobeengoodforus...wehavebeengettinginputsandgottento
meettheothers,anditgivesyounetwork.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard:00:09:01.21)
SusanneAndersen therebysees theworkshopsandmeetingasawelcomeopportunity tomeet
otheractorsandlearnfromthemoreexperiencedones.Buttheyhavealsobeensuccessfulinusing
theworkshoptoestablishacollaborationwithothertourismactors.Duringtheinterview,Susanne
mentionedthat theyatDybkærgaardare in theprocessofdevelopingcollaborationswithother
actorsintheirarea:
“[…]andIamgoingtohavemeetingwithothersinthearea,St.GallaandDenBlåCafé
todevelopideas...somethinglike‘Ifyourentabicyclehere,youcangovisitthereor
there’.Forexample,Trelleborg...itisnotthatfaraway,andmaybewecouldmention
thatinourbrochures.Weareprovidingsuggestionsfortourstothetourists.Maybe
they could drive their rented bicycles up to Lisbeth and see her beautiful cows.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard:00:06:00.19)
Onthequestionofthesecollaborationinitiativesaresomethingtheyhaveengagedinbythemselves
oriftheyhavebeenencouragedbythelocalgovernment,SusanneAndersenanswered:
“Yes,ithasbeenwiththehelpofthemunicipalityofSlagelse.Itallstartedwiththat
wewereattendingatourismworkshopinMarch.BrankafromSt.Gallacameoverto
me,andwebegantalkingaboutmakingsomethingtogether.Wetalkedaboutthese
toursforexample.Andsincethenwehaveheldmeetingsanddevelopedideas.Andat
oneofthemeetingswehadMiefromVisitVestsjællandjoininginalso.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard:00:07:27.27)
Here,SusanneAndersenisspecificallymentioningtheworkshopinMarchasanexampleofhow
collaborationhavebeencreatedbetweentourismactors.
65
The interviewswith the twoactors, JetteSøndergaardandSusanneAndersen,haveshownthat
there are widely different opinions on the usability and outcome of such a workshop. But an
interviewwithPerThuesenfromSlagelseTourismAssociationalsorevealedthattheworkshophad
notbeenexecutedandfacilitatedthewayitwasintendedtobe,asbrieflytoucheduponearlier.As
thechairmanofSlagelseTourismAssociation,hewasamongtheinitiatorsandinitialentrepreneurs
behindthetourismworkshop,andinitiallywantedittobefocusedaroundcollaborationsbetween
tourism actors. On the day of the workshop Per Thuesen was surprised to see how the time
allocationtocollaborationactivitieshadbeenplanned.Accordingtohim,waytoomuchtimewas
beinggiventoLandudviklingSlagelseandtheirprojects,andashewithaconsiderablyangriertone
explained:
“[…]fastforwardtoGerlevattheworkshopinMarch.Thenitturnsoutthatafourth
ofthemeetingisusedonpresentingthefundedprojectsfromLandudviklingSlagelse!?
Whatthehellisthat?So,itendedupwith2x20withtheworkstationrotationswhere
theactorscouldtalkwitheachother.Thatishowlittletimethatwasusedonthefuture
tourism collaborations in the municipality of Slagelse. And us smaller tourism
associations,whatdidwegetoutofit?Absolutelynothing!”(AppendixF,PerThuesen,
SlagelseTourismAssociation:00:22:39:00)
Asitturnsout,itwasnotapartoftheplansthatLandudviklingSlagelseshouldbetakingupsomuch
ofthetimeattheworkshop.AndduringtheinterviewwithPerThuesen,itisnotdifficulttosense
thathefeelsthattheworkshopwastakenoverbybiggerstakeholdersforself-promotion,instead
ofhelpingthesmallertourismactorsinthemunicipality.Heinitiallywantedthelocalgovernment
tobethemainfacilitatorfortheworkshop,andhewantedthemayortobeinvolvedsothatactors
couldfeelthattourismisanareathatarebeingsupportedandlistenedtofromhigherinstances
also:
“Inthebeginning,Iwassayingthatitshouldbethelocalgovernmentwhoshouldstart
itup.Iwantedthemayortobeinvolvedalso,butthenhewaslateattheworkshop,
andthenIknewthathewasnotreallyinterested.Tourismisabigbusiness,eveninthe
municipalityof Slagelse, and themayor is likeaCEOof that. So, I thought thathe
shouldbeinvolved.Ihadwantedhimtosayacoupleofwords.Insteaditendedupwith
66
beingakindofsalescampaignforLandudviklingSlagelse,whichisfine,butnotata
workshop like that. We need to plan these workshops better.” (Appendix F, Per
Thuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation:00:30:25:07)
Ingeneral,PerThuesenalsohadawishthatmoreregulartourismactorshadattendedtheworkshop
andthatthereweremore“[…]theoriststhanpractitioners.”(Ibid.:00:37:17:28).Itisinterestingto
noticehowPerThuesen isusing the term ‘theoretical’ and ‘theorists’ in relation to the tourism
meetingandworkshops.The‘theorists’inhisdefinitioninthiscontext,aresomeone“[…]placedat
some shelves above us where we apparently do not belong.” (Ibid.: 00:25:58:23). Here he is
specificallyreferringtothetourismdepartment,VisitVestsjællandandLandudviklingSlagelse,who
aretheonesresponsibleformakingnewstrategies,allocatingbiggerfunds,andwho,accordingto
him,aremostlysittinginofficesandrarelytakingahands-onapproachtogetafeelingofwhatis
reallygoingonwiththetourismactorsinthemunicipality.
PerThuesen’sviewontheworkshopandtheoutcomeofit, isrepresentingadifferentapproach
thanthatofthetwoformerlycitedtourismactors.Throughhisworkasachairmanofthetourism
association in Slagelse, he is representing a link between the slightly higher instances like the
tourismdepartmentandVisitVestsjælland,andthenthesmallertourismactors.Hewasalsoapart
oftheinitialplanningprocessoftheworkshop,andthereforbecameawitnesstohowtheprocess
slowlywasbeingtakenoverbywhathecallsthe‘theoretical’,untileventuallyundertheworkshop
itself,tobetakenoverbyLandudviklingSlagelsewho,inhisopinion,useditasakindofmarketing
tooltopromotethemselves.
Tourismstakeholdernetwork
In the planning process of theworkshop, Puk KirkeskovHvisendal from the coastal and nature
tourism project, facilitated a meeting where tourism associations, business associations and
VisitVestsjællandwas invited. Svensson,NordinandFlagestad (2005)argues that all destination
planninganddevelopmentmustincludeallkeypublicandprivatetourismactorstobeefficient,so
itwas interesting to investigate Puk KirkeskovHvisendal’s reason behind including these in the
planningprocess:
67
“Thatworkshophaddifferentpurposes.Firstofall,therehadbeenalongingwishfrom
thesmalltourismassociationstobeinvolvedbecausetheyfeltthattheyhadbeenkept
outside. So that is why theywere at themeeting. Theworkshopwas also held so
everybody could be informed at once about the new project, but also to bring a
messageaboutthatthelocalgovernmentreallywanttodosomethingabouttourism
now.ThereasonwhyVisitVestsjællandwasatthemeetingwasofcoursebecausethey
areourmarketingpartner.”
(AppendixG.PukKirkeskovHvistendal,Projectleader–CoastalandNatureTourism,
00:04:44.01)
Linkingherresponsetocollaborativetheoryisquiteinteresting,sinceshementionsthebenefitsthe
otherstakeholdersbeinginvolvedintheplanningprocess,butitseemslikeitisonlyfortheirsake.
JamalandGetz(1995)arguesthatstakeholdersmustfeelthattheyhavesomekindofsayinginthe
planningprocess,but thatwasnot the caseduring themeeting.Per Thuesen from the tourism
associationinSlagelseevencomplainedabouthowhefelttheworkshopwasgoinginadifferent
direction,comparedtowhatheoriginallyhadplan,becauseashesaid:
“Theideaofthisnetworkworkshopcomesfromme,becauseIthoughtthatweneeded
somethinglikethat.So,weheldameetingtoplantheworkshop.Duringthemeeting
afterashorttime,Ihadtostopandsaythat'thisisbecomingtooacademicnow'.That
wasnottheplanatall-Iwantedtoplananetworkworkshopandinsteadweended
uphearingaboutstrategies.Andthatisfine,butforanothermeeting.”
(AppendixF,PerThuesen,TourismAssociationofSlagelse,00:22:39.00)
PukKirkeskovHvistendal’sreasonbehindinvolvingthestakeholderswasexactlyhowPerThuesen
experiencedthemeeting,butunfortunatelythatwasnotpositive.PerThuesenhadhopedtoreach
solutions to the different agendas, “by dealing constructively with differences”, and a “joint
ownershipofdecisionsisinvolved”(Gray1989:236).
PukKirkeskovHvistendalshowedthoughthe interviewthatshestronglybelieves that theother
stakeholdergroupsshouldbeapartofplanningnetwork,butitseemslikeitismorethepurposeof
informingthem,ratherthanlettingthembeapartoftheplanningprocess.
68
According to Puk, “there is no doubt that there is a distance between the work that we and
VisitVestsjællanddo,andthenwhatthetourismassociationsaredoing”(AppendixG.PukKirkeskov
Hvistendal,Projectleader–CoastalandNatureTourism,00:10:25.06).Rhodes(1997)hastouched
uponthissubject,anddescribeshow issuesoftenemergewhenpublicstakeholdersandprivate
stakeholders are joining in networks. Svensson, Nordin and Flagestad "implies that neither
governmentnorbusiness is inchargeoftheprocessbutthattheinterdependencybetweenthem
maybecrucial”(Svensson,NordinandFlagestad,2005:32).Otherscholars(Gray1989:Lankford&
Howard,1994:Waddock,1989:JamalandGetz,1995)hasalsotalkedabouttheinterdependency
between actors, and itmight be here the leading stakeholders is lacking. VisitVestsjælland are
commercialandtheirgoalistofinanciallyprofit,andthetourismandbusinessassociationshasthe
interest of their local community to represent, and the tourism department has a long-term
objective.
Onthe5thofMay,PukandChristofferfacilitatedafollow-upmeetinginrelationtotheworkshop,
where the outcome of theworkshopwas discussed. Besides evaluation on theworkshop, new
initiativesfromthecoastalandnaturetourismprojectwasdiscussed.AsPukdescribeditwiththe
firstmeetinginMarch,thismeetingwasalsousedtoinformtheotherstakeholdersaboutwhatis
goingon,ratherthanincludingthem.
Even though Puk Kirkeskov Hvistendal and Per Thuesen does not completely agree about the
purpose if these stakeholdernetworkmeetings,andone ishaving long-termobjectivesand the
otherhavingshort-termobjective,itappearsthatbothsidesseethebenefitsofthenetwork.Puk
caninvolvethestakeholdersinthecoastalandnaturetourismproject,eventhoughtheyhavelittle
to say in relation todiscussion-making (Gray1989). It is the idea that the tourismandbusiness
associations,VisitVestsjællandandthetourismdepartmentshallmeetacoupleoftimesayearin
thetourismstakeholdernetwork,anddiscusstheongoingtourismdevelopment
To analyse this tourism stakeholder network further, Svensson, Nordin and Flagestad’s (2005)
frameworkwillbeused.Itcontainsthreeaspectsofapartnership,butcansuccessfullybeadapted
toacollaborativeplanninganddevelopmentnetworkastheoneanalysedinthesection.Thefirst
aspectisinclusiveness,whichlookatthestakeholdersinvolvedandtheroletheyareplaying,and
69
why they are a part of the network. The second is accountability, which focuses on what
responsibilitieseachstakeholderhas,andfinallyitleadsustothelastone,coherence,whichisthe
stakeholders’abilitytocollaborate,andrelatestounderstandingofinter-dependence(Jamaland
Getz,1995)andrecognitionofcommonissues,andthebenefitofsharingresources.AsSvensson,
NordinandFlagestadargues,“Thepresenceofpartnershipsdoesnotguaranteethattheymakea
difference,letaloneaddvaluetotheprocess”(Svensson,NordinandFlagestad,2005:33).
Inclusiveness
As emphasised both in the national tourism strategy and in KL’s tourism suggestions for
municipalities,collaborationbetweentourismandthebusinesssocietymustbestrengthened,and
byincludingbothtourismassociationsandbusinessassociations,thetourismstakeholdernetwork
canensurethattheyatleastcommunicate.Whatisinterestinghereiswheretothelineisbetween
tourism and business actors. For example, all the restaurants in the centre of Slagelse are not
consideredapartof the tourismactornetwork,botduring thesummerasignificantamountof
revenuecomesfromtourism.Hopefullybyjoiningthebusinessandtourismassociations,thegap
between them can be narrowed. Puk Kirkeskov Hvistendal’s reason behind involving these
associationsistocommunicatetheworkdonethroughwithherproject,sincetheassociationsis
thecommunicationchanneltothelocalactors.
ThelasttourismstakeholderwhoisapartofthenetworkisVisitVestsjælland,andtheirbasisfor
beinginthenetworkistheirroleasmarketingorganisation.VisitVestsjællandisalsotouchingupon
somedevelopmentareasinrelationtotourism,sothenetworkisalsofunctioningasacoordination
networkbetweenthekeytourismstakeholders.AsMorrison(2013)describesit:
“TherearesomanydiversetourismstakeholdersinadestinationthattheDMOoften
hastobeproactiveinbringinggroupsofspecificpeopletogethertodealwithparticular
issuesoropportunities”
(Morrison,2013.P.192).
Accountability
Withoutitbeingofficial,itappearsthattheresponsibilityoftheassociationsistofocusontheshort-
termobjectives that isof interest to their localactors.Puk,and thecoastalandnature tourism
70
project’sresponsibilityistocommunicatethewhatisbeingworkoninrelationtothelong-term
objective,whichissometimesconflictingwiththeassociationsbecause,asPerThuesenargues,they
feelleftout.Svensson,NordinandFlagestad(2005)describesthisarea“Thisisahighlysensitive
issuethatmightthreatenthelegitimacyofpartnerships,andthisiswherethedistinctionbetween
publicandprivateismostevident,andalsomostcontroversial”(Svensson,NordinandFlagestad,
2005: 33). This is something thatwas shown through the interviewswithPer Thuesen andPuk
KirkeskovHvistendal,astheydidnotseemtobeonthesamepage.Eventhoughitcoursesissues,
itisimportantthatbothshort-termandlong-termobjectivesarebeingmanageatadestination,
anditcanbedifficultforoneorganisationtobeinchargeofboth.Itisthereforarguablethatthe
stakeholders involved in this tourism stakeholder network must accept their differences in
objectives,andasGray(1989)argues“Solutionsemergebydealingconstructivelywithdifferences”
(Gray1989:236).
Coherence
Inthetourismstakeholdernetwork,itappearsthattherearetwogroups.Thevoluntarybusiness
andtourismassociationsononeside,andVisitVestsjællandandthetourismdepartmentonthe
otherside.Aspreviouslydiscussed,oneofthereasonsarethedifferenceinobjectives,butanother
isthelevelofresourcestheypossess.Thefactthattheassociationsisrunbyvoluntaryworkerscan
make it difficult to get them to be 110% involved in initiatives, which is understandable. Puk
Kirkeskov Hvistendal also mentions these issues when voluntary associations move in to the
planningprocessofacommercialmarket(AppendixG.PukKirkeskovHvistendal,Projectleader–
CoastalandNatureTourism,00:10:25.06).
Ifallstakeholderscouldbeensuredafinancialgrowthbysupportinginitiatives,thecollaboration
mightbegoingeasier.AnotherissueiswhatWoodandGray,(1991)isarguing,thatstakeholderis
autonomous,duetothefacteventhoughtheyatsomelevelarecollaborationinthenetwork,they
stillhavetheirowninteresttocareforfirst.
Thetourismstakeholdernetworkisbenefittingthecollaborationbetweenthekeystakeholdersat
the destination, which hopefully will benefit the collaboration between the local actors. Even
though there are issues in relation to objective, it is important for the destination’s further
71
developmentthatthestakeholdersarecollaborating,andeachtakesresponsibility inrelationto
theirroleinthenetwork.
PukKirkeskovHvistendalwasaskedifshefeltthattourismstakeholdernetworkwassomethingthat
shouldbemaintained:
“Yes,becauseitcanhelpremovethebarriersinthedifferentareasofthemunicipality.
Becauseitseemslikethetourismactorsknowhowtocollaborate,sothenextstepis
tomaketheassociationandorganisationallevelcapableofcollaborating.So,ifyoufor
examplemakeawinterbathingfestivalinKorsør,thenyouaskthesurroundingareas
iftheywanttojoininandmaybeyoucantriplethenumberofvisitors.So,Idefinitely
think that it is something that should be continued. And I actually think that it is
somethingthatVisitVestsjællandshouldbemoreinvolvedin.”
(AppendixG.PukKirkeskovHvistendal,Projectleader–CoastalandNatureTourism,
00:06:02.01)
In this section of the analysis, the instruments used by the local government to encourage
collaboration between tourism actors was examined. Two instruments of collaboration
encouragement were identified: A tourism workshop and facilitation of tourism stakeholder
network for the tourism planning stakeholders on the destination level. These methods were
initiallythoughtofasorganisationalinstrumentstoencouragecollaborations,butwiththeinclusion
of Landudvikling Slagelse the instruments were led towards a more informational level with
promotionofownprojectswhich.ThechairmanofSlagelseLTOwasparticularlydissatisfiedwith
thisprocessandfeltthattheyhadmovedtoofarawayfromtheoriginalintentions.
Hopefully by further developing the tourism stakeholder network these misunderstandings of
intentionscanbelimited,andthecollaborationinthedestinationlevelcanstrengthened.
Collaborationinthelocaltourismactorlevel
Throughourliteraturereview,wehavelookedatthedifferentcollaborationsandpartnershipsthere
existswithinadestination. Inthissectionoftheanalysis,wewanttoanalyseuponhowtourism
actorsperceivecollaborationandpartnership initiatives,andhowtheyexperiencecollaboration
betweentourismactors,tourismnetworksandthetourismdevelopmentorganisations.
72
AsDredge(2006)argues,tourismnetworks,canbehardtoidentifysincetheycanbebothformal
andinformal,andactorscanbepartofdifferentnetworksandcollaborationsatthesametime.The
same thing goeswith collaborations and partnerships, but by studying the tourism network of
Slagelse closely, different kinds of collaboration emerged. When actors are part of different
network,itoftenbringsalongdifferentinterests.Anexampleofthisistheanglerattheworkshop,
who clearly, under coverofbeing interested in angler tourism, lobbied forhisown local angler
network.
Many scholars have described the benefits of collaboration and partnerships (Dredge, 2006;
Morrison,2013;JamalandGertz,1995;Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad,2010;VanderDuim,
2007),whichcanconvincetourismactorstojoinincollaborativenetworks,but“evidenceislacking
onhowactorschoosetocooperate”(Beritelli,2011:607).Byanalysingtheinterviewswithtourism
actors,itishopedtogainanunderstandingofhowtourismactorsperceivecollaboration.
Two different types of collaborations have emerged through the research: the collaborations
activelycreatedbythetourismdepartmentorVisitVestsjælland,andthecollaborationscreateby
thetourismactorsthemselves.
Networkscreatedbydestinationteambuilding
Everytourismactorwhowasinterviewed,wasapartneratVisitVestsjælland,whichmeansthatthey
areapartofalargertourismnetwork.Thanispurelyaquincedense,andnotsomethingwehad
plannedfor.Thereweredifferentkindsoftourismactorsinterviewed,suchashotels,campsitesand
rentalservices,soitmustmeanthatVisitVestsjællandhasawidediversityofpartners.Boeslunde
Camping, Musholm Holiday and Conference Centre and Dybkærgaard’s perception of
VisitVestsjælland’stourismnetwork,andtheperceivedbenefitsofit,wasquitepositive.Susanne
fromDybkærgaarddescribeshowVisitVestsjællandhashelpedthemasanewtourismactor:
“Ithasbeenbeneficialforus.Becauseasanewcomerintourism,itisnicetohavesome
guidance.Andtheworkshopshavealsobeengoodforus.Wehavebeengettinginputs
andgottentomeettheothers,anditgivesyounetwork.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,00:09:01.29)
73
Susanne’smotivationforjoiningtheworkshopswasthecompetenciesshewouldgetaccesstofrom
theotherattendeesasanewtourismentrepreneur,but itwasalsotoexpandhernetwork.She
furthertellsusthatanemployeefromVisitVestsjællandgavehertheideatostartherbikerental
business,andbythathelpedhertodevelopherproduct.
HansLarsen,fromBoeslundeCampingdidalsomentionthebenefitsofagoodnetworkbetween
businesseslikehisown,anetworkhegotthroughVisitVestsjælland’sworkshops.Hedescribeshow
himandtheothercampsitesintheareaaresendingtouristsbetweeneachother,iftheircampsites
arefullybooked.Hefurtherpointsouthowimportantthatis,becauseiftouristsgetthefeelingthat
it istoohardtofindaplacetostayinthearea,thentheywillnotcomeback(AppendixB,Hans
Larsen,BoeslundeCamping,00:02:40.06).Thisargumentisinterestingbecauseitindicatesthathe
andtheothercampsitesareseeingtheirtourismbusinessesasapartofalargerpicture.Heknows
thatitdoesnotonlymattertohaveagreatcampsitefortourists,thetourists’overallperceptionof
theserviceatthedestinationasawhole,isequallyasimportant.
TineJensenfromMusholmHolidayandConferenceCentre,hadastatementthatelaboratesthe
pointHansLarsenwastalkingabout.Sheexplains:
“Rightnow,throughVisitVestsjælland,weareworkingonimprovingthecollaborations
between different actors in themunicipality.We need to help each other bringing
attentiontothedifferentthingsandplacesthatyoucanvisitandexperience inthe
area.Wehaveagreatpotentialforotheractorsintheareawhocanbenefitfromour
visitorsforexample.Forexample,thereshouldbenoproblemforusinadvertisingfor
canoerentalorbikerentalplaces,becauseintheendwewillallbenefitfromit.”
(AppendixB,TineJensenMusholmHolidayandConferenceCentre,00:03:41.09)
ThisiswhatGray(1989)listsasoneofthecriteriaforasuccessfulcollaboration.Hearguesthat“the
stakeholdersmusthavecollectiveresponsibilityfortheongoingdirectionofthedestination”(Gray,
1989:236),anditseemslikeMusholmHolidayandConferenceCentreandBoeslundeCampingare
awareofthat.JamalandGetz(1995)hasthisinter-actorresponsibilityastheirsecondproposition
onhowacollaborationbetweenstakeholderswillbenefitadestination.“Collaborationwillrequire
recognitionofindividualand/ormutualbenefitstobederivedfromtheprocess”(JamalandGetz,
1995:197).Theproblemwithinterdependentcollaboratenetworksasthese,arethatthetourism
74
actorsinvolvedcannotbeguaranteedthattheirinvolvementwillbenefitthem(Svensson,Nordin
andFlagestad,2005:33).Acollaboratearrangementisthereforealsoamatteroftrust,andhaving
thecouragetotakepartinit.
Thetourismactorsweinterviewedseemstoappreciatethebenefitsofbeinginalargerorganised
network,aswewillcategoriseVisitVestsjælland’spartner-networkas.Itcameasabitofasurprise
thattheactors’generalrelationshipwithVisitVestsjællandwassopositive,sincetheearlystagesof
research has shown some rumours that tourism actors were unsatisfied with the tourism
organisation.Thereasonforthisdissatisfactionshouldberootedinthattourismactorsdidnothear
fromVisitVestsjællandaftertheybecamepartners.Tothis,HansLarsenfromBoeslundeCamping
said:
“I have always gotten the help I needed, whether it was technical support to my
homepage,orquestionaboutmarketing.Ithinkthereasonthatactorsmightnotfeel
they receive guidance, is because they are not putting an effort into trying to get
answers.VisitVestsjællandhasalotontheirplate,soactorscannotexpectthemtojust
dropbyontheirowntosolvetheirproblems.”
(AppendixB,HansLarsen,BoeslundeCamping,00:06:10.21)
It ishardtofindthemotivationbehindwhythereperhapsshouldhavebeensomeactorsbeing
disappointedwithVisitVestsjælland,buthisargumentaboutbeingproactiveinapartnershipishard
toarguewith.
OneactorwhoisnothappyaboutVisitVestsjælland,isJetteSøndergaardfromHotelPostgaarden,
butshestill chooses tobeapartner.“Rightnow,weare runningwith thecheapestpartnership
"package"fromVisitVestsjælland,andIcannottellifwearegettinganyvaluefromit”(AppendixA,
JetteSøndergaard,HotelPostgaarden,00:15:41.11).
So,JetteSøndergaarddoesnotseethesamebenefitsasHansLarsenandTineJensen,whichGray
(1989)andJamalandGetz(1995)arguesmustberecognisedbyactorsinvolvedinacollaboration,
for them to see the value. We asked Jette Søndergaard what her partnership package at
VisitVestsjællandcontained,andshesaid:
75
“Well,yougettheopportunitytogotoregionalmeetingsandworkshopsforfree,and
gainaccess tonew informationon the tourismarea.But I reallymiss some sortof
headlineforthesemeetings.Often,theyjustsaysomethinglike‘feelfreetobringalong
newideasandsuggestions,’butnothingevercomesoutofit.”
(AppendixA,JetteSøndergaard,HotelPostgaarden,00:19:14.05)
ThefactthatshestillisapartneratVisitVestsjælland,butdoesnotseethebenefits,issomething
thatunfortunatelywasnot investigated further. The reason couldbe that she still is amember
becauseofalackofabettersolution.Atourismactorlikeahoteldoesnotwanttostandalone,and
thefactthatsheisstillapartofthelargesttourismnetworkgivesanindicationthatshebelievesin
thewhole“1+1equalsmorethantwo”(Morrison,2013).
When we talked to Jette Søndergaard she gave the impression that she attends all tourism
meetings,workshopsandconferencesinthedestination,butshestillhasthefeelingthatshedoes
notgetanyvalueoutofthem.Atthetourismworkshop,arrangedbythecoastalandnaturetourism
projectandLandudviklingSlagelse,asmentionedintheobservationstudy,wehadthepleasureof
sittingatthesametableasher.Asitwasalsotoucheduponinearlierintheanalysis,itwasnoted
howsheshowedalmostaresigningattitudeandwasshakingherheadwhenthemoderatortalked
abouthowthisworkshopwouldgenerategrowthinthetourismdestination.Itwasalsointeresting
tonotice if sheduring theworkstation rotationswouldcontactotheractors,andactively try to
expand her network that could lead to collaborations. This was not the case, and instead she
seemedtokeeptoherselfduringtheserotations.
ThisbehaviourfromJetteSøndergaardcanbelinkedtowhatHansLarsenwasemphasising;You
mustbeproactiveinanetwork,becauseyoucannotexpectpeopletocarryyoutogrowthwithout
beinganactivepartofacollaboration.
Herargumentabouthermissingasortofheadlineforthesemeetingsissomethingwehaveheard
before.Waddock (1989)argues thatactors involved incollaborationsneedsclear recognitionof
issues,forthetocollaboratetowardsasolution.Butitcanbehardtosetaheadlineforaworkshop
thatdoesspeaktoalltourismactorsatadestination.JetteSøndergaardtoldduringtheinterview,
thatshebelievedthatthedestinationshouldbepromotedasaVikingdestination,H.C.Andersen
76
destinationandMatadordestinationfromtheoldDanishtv-show.Ifaheadlineforacollaborate
workshopgetstospecific,itcancoursesomeactorstostayhomebecausetheydonotseetheir
businessfitintotheprogram.VisitVestsjælland’sworkshops,andthecoastalandnaturetourism
workshop,allhavecarriedthesametheme;“letscreatecollaborations”,butnotaconcreteagenda
onhowtodoit.
Astoucheduponearlier intheanalysis, is facilitatingacollaborationbetweenDybkærgaardand
Ostebørsen. SusanneAndersen told in the interview that during theworkshop, she andBranka
Lugonja(aglassartist)fromSt.GallaGlaskunst,startedtalking:
“ItstartedwiththatwewereattendingatourismworkshopinMarch.BrancafromSt.
Gallacameovertome,andwebegantalkingaboutmakingsomethingtogether.We
talked about these tours for example. And since thenwe have heldmeetings and
developed ideas. And at one of thesemeetingswe hadMie fromVisitVestsjælland
joininginalso.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,00:07:27.27)
Shefurtherdescribeshowthepartnershipisaclassicpartnership,wheretouristscanrentbikesat
DybkærgaardandthengetasortofdiscountatSt.GallaandtheBlåCafé.This isanexampleof
tourismactors beingproactive, and getting valueout ofworkshop. Theopen-minded approach
seemedtobemoreproductivethatJetteSøndergaard’stimeonherphoneduringtheworkshop.
SelinandChavez(1994)hastoucheduponindividuals’attitudeinacollaborativenetwork,andit
caneasilybeadaptedtotheestablishmentofitaswell.Intheirresearch,itwasshownthatnetworks
withindividualswhoweremotivational,committed,enthusiastic,hadpatience,wereopenminded
andhadanabilitytogetotherpeopleexcited,weremuchmorelikelytosucceed.
Thenextsectionoftheanalysiswillbeexaminingthecollaborationscreatedbythetourismactors
themselves,andhowtheywerecreated,andhowtheactorsperceivethesecollaborations.
77
Networkscreatedbythetourismactorsthemselves
Most of the collaborations and partnerships that has been identified, has been facilitated by
VisitVestsjælland, through their partner workshops. A tendency discovered is that these
collaborationsonlyappearsbetweenactorsthataregeographicallyclosetoeachother.Ofcourse,
thatmightbeforpracticalreasons,butitcaninfluencethestrengtheningofthedestinationasone
jointdestination.Itcausesthedestinationtobedividedintomanysmallerdestinations,wherethe
actorsprotecttheirownlocaldestination.Anotherargumentcouldbethatthetourismactorsdoes
not recognise thetourists’mobilitywithinadestination.Most touristsdonotsit in their rented
holiday house all week, but seek to explore the destination they are visiting. A more open-
mindednesstoencouragetouriststoreachallareasofthedestination,couldbedonethroughlong
distancecollaborations.
InterestinglyitwasfoundthatoneofthelargertourismactorsinthemunicipalityMusholmHoliday
andConferenceCentre,foundithardtocreatetourismpartnershipswithothertourismactors:
“Well,youcansaythatoneoftenmeetssomeoneandthenwetalkabouthowitcould
benicetodoorcreatesomethingtogether,butitishardforustofigureouthowtodo
it.Collaborationsbetweenactorscanoftenbecomplicated:Areweallowedtotake
money for advertising for a canoe rental for example? Do we make a written
agreement? Because we of course all want to make a little profit from these
collaborations. As I understand it, there are a lot of actors who are interested in
collaborations,andVisitVestsjællandmakesiteasierforus.”
(AppendixB,TineJensen,MusholmHolidayandConferenceCentre,00:05:39.20)
So,MusholmHolidayandConferenceCentreismissingsomesortofguidance,andVisitVestsjælland
isprovidingthecompetenciesforthemtosuccessfullycreatecollaborations.Itisagainimportant
torememberthatyoumustbe,asMusholmare,apayingpartnertoreceivethesebenefits.It is
interestingthatMusholm,asoneofthelargertourismactors,aresayingthattheyarelackingthe
competencestocreateactortoactorcollaborations.Thelackofcompetencesateachtourismactor,
couldbethereasonwhycollaborationbetweenactorsisnotsowidespread,andactorsmayalso
notrecognisethebenefitsitcanbring.
78
Inalloftheinterviewsconductedforthisresearch,Skælskørisalwaysbeingreferredtoasalocal
communitywhosupporteachother,andwherecollaborationcomeseasierthaninotherpartsof
thedestination.JetteSøndergaardfromHotelPostgaardeninSkælskør,talksabouttwoevents,The
PotteryFestivalandDrengerøvsaften(aneventformostlymen,withbeers,oldcarsandbikes,and
theshopsareopenallnight),whichstartedoutassmallevents.Thetwoeventshavegrownalmost
toatoolargeofascaleforthecity,andthereasonithasbeenpossibleisbecause“therearealot
of passionate people in Skælskørwhoare alwayswilling to help in setting up events and such”
(AppendixA,JetteSøndergaard,HotelPostgaarden,00:30:07.28).
Asmentionedearlier,wehavefoundthatthemunicipalityofSlagelseisdividedintosmallerlocal
destinations,whicharemoreorlesssuccessfulintheirtourismdevelopment.Theinitialapproach
wastolookatcollaborationsinthemunicipalityasawhole,butthereisatendencytowardsthat
thecitiesinsidethemunicipalityseemtobeworkingasindependentlocaldestinations.Thenext
section will therefore look at these local destinations within the destination, and look at how
collaborationsareatthelocallevel.
Theoldmunicipalityborders–localtourismnetworks
This section will look at the cities of Skælskør, Korsør, Slagelse and Bisserup, since they the
interviewshasshownthatthelocalshasnotforgottenhowthetheywereseparatemunicipalities
beforethemergingofmunicipalitiesin2007.Bisserup,wasinfactapartoftheoldmunicipalityof
Skælskør,butishasbeendiscoveredthatthey,maybebecauseoftheirgeographicallocationinthe
outskirtsofthemunicipality,hasbecometheirownlocaldestination.
Itmustberecognisedthatthecommunitiesstillfeelastrongconnectiontohowtheyusedtobe
independent municipalities, and it is therefore interesting to investigate how it affect tourism
collaboration. Both in relation to how their local tourism community is functioning, but more
impertinently,howcollaborationbetweenthecitiesisaffectedbythemerging.
79
Skælskør
ThecityofSkælskørhasbeenmentionedasatextbookexampleofhowcommunitybasedtourism
shouldplayout. JetteSøndergaardfromHotelPostgaardenhas,asbeforementioned,describes
howthelocalcommunityissupportinginitiatives,andhowshe“onadrivethrough,cameacross
thislittlewonderfulplacecalledSkælskør.Ithadalotofinterestingandcharmingfeaturesforthe
tourists,suchasacosyharbourinthemiddleofthecity,andhadalovelybeachnotfarawayfrom
herewith a fantastic view to the small islands, theGreat Belt Bridge and the ships passing by”
(AppendixA,JetteSøndergaard,HotelPostgaarden,00:01:27.19).Thescenery,andthefactthat
therewasanabandonedbuildingrightnexttotheharbour,convincedhertostartherhotel.
TheareaaroundSkælskørissomethingspecial,andthetourismexperienceisalotdifferentthan
going toa larger city likeSlagelse. It isamore rural tourismarea,andpromoteamore relaxed
atmosphereasSusannefromDybkærgaardalsopointsout:
“Henrik(husband)andIwasinSkælskørtwodaysago-whenyouarriveinthecity...
theculture,landscapeandnatureinvitesacertainkindofpeople.Andtheyhavegreat
naturallightinSkælskør-thatisreallysomethinganartistisappreciating.Soofcourse,
theyhavealotofartistsinthecity.Therearenoconcretehousingsorbigmainroads.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,00:02:08.23)
AsmentionedbySusanneAndersen,Skælskørhasmanyartistsamongtheirresidence,andtheir
galleriesareattractionsinthemselves.Theseactorshavecreatedanetwork(kunstkit.dk),tojoin
theirresourcesinastrongerattempttoattractart-interestedtouristtothelocaldestination.
The fact that the area is quite unique, compared to other areas in themunicipality, can be an
explanationonwhytheirinternalcollaborationaresosuccessful.Theyhavesomethingvaluableto
protect,andtheirrathersmallsizemightmakeinitiativeseasiertomanage,sincetherearenotso
many stakeholders involved. Jamal andGetz (1995: 197) talks about how stakeholders need to
recognisethebenefitsfromdevelopingcommunitybasedtourism,andhowthelocalcommunity
play an important role. Jette Søndergaard has mentioned how local residents are supporting
initiatives,butdifferentinterestgroupsarealsocollaborationandjoiningresources.Anexampleof
this,isthenewlylaunchedwebsite(skonne-skaelskor.dk,19/5-2017),whereresidentsandtourists
80
cangetinformationaboutshopping,restaurant,eventsandsoon.Theyevencreatedanappfor
mobileusers,anditisallcreatedandfinancedbylocalbusinessesandassociations.Skælskørasa
cityhastheirownspecificsiteonVisitVestsjælland'swebsite,butapparently,thatwasnotenough.
ItcanalsobeseenaswayforSkælskørtobeindependent,andnothastorelyondestinationtourism
organisation.ThisagainshowsthestrengthofthecommunityinSkælskør,andhowtourismactors
andthebusinesscommunitycanworktogether.Somethingthatwasmentionedinboththenational
tourismstrategyandKL’stourismsuggestions,aswaytoboosttourism.
It almost seems like that the community in Skælskør are so proud ofwhat the relatively small
communityhasestablishedinrelationtoeventsandactivitiesfortourists,thattheyseethemselves
as“better”thantheotherpartsofthedestination.Theyrelysomuchontourism,anditappears
thattheydonottrustthedestinationleveltourismorganisation’sabilitytoleadtheirdevelopment,
so theyhave taken the responsibilityby creating somany local initiatives. This course the local
destinationofSkælskørtodriftawayfromtheideaofSlagelsebeingonejointdestination.
PerfromSlagelseTourismAssociationwasaskedaboutmergingthethreetourismassociations,and
inhisanswer,hedescribedhowwellthetourismcommunityinSkælskørisfunctioning,whichisthe
resultofapartnershipbetweenthetourismassociationandthebusinessassociation.Insomeway,
itseemedlikeheenviedthewaythecommunityinSkælskørissowell-functioning.Accordingto
PerThuesen, the fact that thecommunity inSkælskøraresocoordinated in relation to tourism
developmentandsupportingeachother,isoneofthereasonswayhedoesnotseeSkælskørever
want tomergewith the other tourismassociations (Appendix F, Per Thuesen, Slagelse Tourism
Association, 00:52:40.16). At the rate collaboration is emerging within Skælskør, it is
understandablethattheydonotwhattogetclosertoKorsør,sincetheymightfearthatKorsør’s
lackingabilitytocollaboratecaninfluencewhatSkælskørhasestablished.
Bisserup
InBisserup,ToniAndersen fromthetowncouncilwas interviewed,originally to investigatewhy
noneofthetourismactorsfromtheareaattendedthetourismworkshop.Whatwassurprisingly
found,wasawell-functioningsmalltownwithathrivingtourismlife.Theyhaveanactiveharbour,
aninnwithaccommodations,acampsite,tworestaurants,afishshopwhodeliversmokedfishto
81
themostprominentrestaurantsinCopenhagen,andaverywell-functioninglocalcommunitywith
550residents.
The town council which Toni Andersen represents arrangesmany events throughout the year.
AccordingtoToni,thetourismactorsinBisseruphaveahealthyrelationship,andarecoordination
eventstogether,butshewouldnotdescribeitasatourismnetwork(AppendixD,ToniAndersen,
LocalCouncilBisserup,00:15:18.09).Itappearsthatthetowncouncilispartlyatourismnetwork,
andthatmightbeenoughconsideringthetown’srelativelysmallsize.ItwaslearnedthatBisserup
isundertheSkælskørTourismAssociation,buttheyarenotengagedinanyactivecommunication
oractivitiestogether.WebelievethatthelackofcommunicationbetweenBisserupandthetourism
associationinSkælskør,isduetothefactthatbothtownsaremoreinterestedinprotectingtheir
own localdestination.Thetwotownsarealsoquitesimilar in relation to their tourismproduct,
whichmighthavecoursedsomecompetitionbetweenthetwo.
TonidescribedhowattractiveBisserup is for tourists,whichcauses the towntobepackedwith
visitorsduringthesummer.Anoutcomeofthishasbeenthattheyinthecommunityfeelthatthey
actuallyhavetoomanytourists,asToniAndersenexplained:
“Yes,Iactuallybelievethat.Personally,Idonotgotothebeachhereinthesummer
months,andIknowthatothersstayawayfromtheretoo.Therearesimplytoomany
people.”
(AppendixD,ToniAndersen,BisserupTownCouncil:00:08:27:12)
JamalandGetz(1995)hasthisasoneoftheirpropositionsforcommunitybasedtourism:
“Tourismdevelopment thatexceeds thecarryingcapacityof theeconomic,natural,
andsocioculturalenvironmentwillimpactnegativelyontheoveralltourismindustryof
thecommunity,duetothecloseinterrelationsoftheelementswithinthecommunity's
tourismsystem.”
(JamalandGetz,1995:197)
Touristsinterfereswiththeeverydaylifeoftheresidence,anditseemslikeabitofadilemmafor
them.AsTonidescribes, theyareclearlyproudof theirability toattract tourists,and inasmall
82
communityliketheirs,allthewonderfulrestaurantsandshopscouldnotsurvivewithoutthemany
visitorsduringthesummer.
WetoldToniabouthowVisitVestsjællandmarketthedestinationtopotentialtourists,andifthey
werebeingmarketed.Sheanswered:“Ithinkweshouldbealittlecarefulbecauseweareasmall
place - careful not to be too visible” (Appendix D, Toni Andersen, Local Council Bisserup,
00:13:48.19).
Aftertheinterview,ChristoffergrabbedtheopportunitytotalktoheraboutasummercalendarPuk
andChristofferaretryingtocreate.Theyarecollectingeventsfromalloverthemunicipality,sothe
touristsknowwhat isgoingonduringtheirstay. IncontexttoToni’searlieransweraboutbeing
careful,shetoldChristofferthatshecouldnotgivethatinformationbeforeconsultingwiththerest
oftowncouncil.
Bisserup iswithout a doubt awell-functioning local destination,which exactly receive the right
numberoftouristseachyear,maybeeventoomany–andtheyareactivelytryingnottopromote
themselves further. A reason for their strong community could come from the merging of
municipalities,sincetheyoriginallywishedtobeapartofNæstved,insteadofSlagelse.Theyare
geographicallyalongdistancefromSlagelse,anddonot,accordingtoToniAndersen,feelapartof
themunicipalityofSlagelse.Theyactuallyfeel in-betweentwomunicipalities,whichhaveforced
themtocreatetheirownstronglocalcommunity.IfitisthegeneralperceptioninBisserup,they
havefoundcommonground,andarenowworkingtogethertosolvejointlyrecognisedissues.
Korsør
IthasbeenhardtoreallygettothebottomofthetourismsituationinKorsør.Fromotherpartsof
themunicipalitywe have heard that Korsør is perceived as the ugly duck of the three cities of
Slagelse,KorsørandSkælskør, inrelationtocollaborationwiththegoalofdeveloptourism.This
viewthatKorsørdoesnotwishtobepartofamajortourismcooperation,isrootedinthattheir
tourismassociationisnotwillingtoattendmeetings,orparticipateinstrengtheningcollaboration
betweenthemunicipalityandtourismassociations.Astoucheduponinthemethodologychapter,
wehavetriedtogetaninterviewwiththechairmanofthelocaltourismassociationinKorsørto
givehissideofthestory,buthehasnotrespondedtoourmailsorcalls.
83
SusanneAndersenfromDybkærgaardhadaninterestingviewonwhycollaborationsinKorsør is
hardtoestablish:
“IthasalwaysbeenthatwayinKorsør.ItisdividedintoKorsørandHalsskov.Thereis
thebeautifulsideofHalsskovandthenthemoreboringandbleaksidethatisKorsør-
andyouhavetopayattentiontobothofthesesideswhenyouwanttourismtogrow.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,00:03:05.03)
Korsørusedtobetwoseparatetownsyearsback,butgotmergedintooncity–Korsør.
PerThuesenfromthetourismassociationinSlagelsealsohadsomethingtosayaboutthesituation
inKorsør:
“ThereisalsoaproblemwithHalsskovandKorsør-theyarealmostenemies,andwhen
youcannotevenuniteacity,howhardwillitthenbetouniteamunicipality?”
(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,00:52:40.16).
Thefact thatKorsørusedtobetwocities is influencingtheirmotivationtocollaboration,which
seemsquitesillytobehonest,butthesamethinggoeswiththeoldmunicipalitybordersaswill
analysedlater.
The LTO– local tourismorganizationasDredgedescribes, are thepeakbodyof a local tourism
destination.Theyshouldbethelinkin-betweenactorsandthelinkbetweenprivatetourismactors
and the public tourism department (Dredge, 2006: 270). They should encourage openness and
collaborations,butitseemsliketheyaredoingfarfromthat.JamalandGetzarearguingthesame
thing:
“A convener is required to initiate and facilitate community-based tourism
collaboration. The convener should have the following characteristics: legitimacy,
expertise,resources,plusauthority,andmaybederivedfromagovernmentagency,
anindustryfirm,orgroupsuchasthelocalChamberofCommerce,orthelocaltourist
organization”
(JamalandGetz,1995:198)
84
The chairmanof Korsør TourismAssociation is in fact amember of the local government’s city
council,sothefactthathedoesnotsupporttourismcollaborationanddevelopment,evenbecome
moreabsurd.PukandChristofferdoesalsohaveproblemsgettinghimtoattendtourismstrategy
meetingwith the tourismdepartment and thebusiness associations, so it is not only actors he
neglectstocollaboratewith.
Slagelse
WhenwelookatSlagelseasacity,tourismhasnotbeenapriorityforthebusinesses.Slagelsehas
awell-functioningbusinesscommunity,andthatmightbethereasonwhytourismhasnotbeen
prioritised.Ofthethreelargercitiesinthemunicipality,itisSlagelsetherehasthefewestamount
ofactualtourismactors,likemuseumsandhotels,buthasmorecafés,restaurantsandnightlife.If
welookatSkælskørandBisserup,therevenuetourismbringstothecommunityiswhythereisso
many businesses that can survive, which contributes to the quality of the everyday life of the
residents.Slagelse isnotdependentontourists,or theymightnot recognisehowmanytourists
takingdaytripstothecityfromotherareasofthedestination.PerThuesenfromthelocaltourism
associationarguesthatthey,inrelationtotourismdevelopment,“[…]havethehardestconditions
fortourismbecausewehavenotbeenthatusedtoitbefore”(AppendixF,PerThuesen,Slagelse
TourismAssociation,00:09:29.01).
Per Thuesen seem to be a man with his heart in the right place when it comes to tourism
development,anditisevidentthatheisputtingalotoftimeandeffortintosupportingthetourism
networkofSlagelse.WetoldhimaboutthenationalandKL’stourismstrategy,andhowtheyboth
stressingtheimportanceoftourismactorscollaboratingwiththebusinesscommunity.Weasked
himwhathisthoughtswereonthatkindofcollaboration:
“Tobehonest, itworks like shit.There I said it.We tried to sitdownand talkwith
BusinessSlagelse.TheywanttoopenanewbusinessofficesomewherehereinSlagelse
-andIalsowanttoopenanewtourismoffice,andthatistotallydumbthatweare
goingtositintwodifferentplaces.Thecustomersarealmostthesame,becausethe
businessesinthecityarealsobenefittingfromthetouristwhobuystheirproducts.So
whydon'twecombinethesethings?”
85
(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,00:18:25.08)
ThetourismassociationinSlagelseisoneofthereasonswhytourisminthecityofSlagelse,andthe
wholemunicipality,ismovingintherightdirection.PerThuesenaschairmaniswithoutadoubtthe
mainreasonthatthetourismassociationishavingagoodrelationshipwiththeactors,duetothe
timeheisputtingintoit.Everyonewetalkedtoduringourresearch,mentionedhiminonewayor
theother.SusannefromDybkærgaarddescribedhowmuchsheappreciatedthecollaborationwith
him:
“Yes,hewasoneofourveryfirstcontacts,whichotheractorsarealsosaying.Heis
verygood,andhasagreatapproach.WemethimonetimeinSorø,atameetingthat
VisitVestsjællandwasfacilitatingin2015.Ashorttimeafterthat,hecametovisitus
hereatDybkærgaard.Hecameinandwehadacupofcoffeeandhejustwassodown
toearth.”
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,00:18:18.02)
Shefurthersaidthatshedidnotunderstandhowhecanputsomucheffortintoavoluntarytask.
PerThuesenisequerryfortheroyalfamilyonCopenhagen,sohemusthaveabusyschedule.
AfterPerThuesenbecamethechairmanofSlagelseTourismAssociation,heestablishedamentor
arrangementforthetourismactors.Eachoftheboardmembersispairedupwithafewtourism
actors,sotheactorsalwaysknowwhotocontactinthecasethattheyneedsomeguidance.
Linked towhatSusanneAndersen saidaboveaboutPerThuesenbeingdown toearth, shealso
describedhowdifficultitisforanewtourismactortofigureoutwhotocontact,andwhohasthe
responsibilities of what areas - local government, VisitVestsjælland or the tourism association
(AppendixE,SusanneAndersen,Dybkærgaard,00:20:17.11).
ThementorarrangementfromthetourismassociationcanbelinkedtowhatJamalandGetz(1995)
calls a tourism convener (Jamal and Getz, 1995: 198), a person who has the competencies,
knowledge and authority. Of cause the boardmembers from the tourism association does not
possessanyauthority,buttheycanhelpguidingintherightdirection.
86
Collaborationbetweenthefourcities
Thetourismassociationsplayacentralroleintheoveralltourismnetworkofthemunicipalityof
Slagelse.Theyareeachrepresentingtheinterestfromthelocalactorlevel,andaretheconnection
to the tourism department, by being a part of collaborative networks with both the tourism
departmentandthethreebusinessassociationsandVisitVestsjælland.
Unfortunatelyforthedevelopmentofcollaborationsacrosscities,(666)itseemstherelationship
betweenthethreecitiesofSlagelse,KorsørandSkælskørarenotthatgood,andJetteSøndergaard
from Skælskør are even describing the relationship between Skælskør and Korsør as a rivalry
(appendixA,JetteSøndergaard,HotelPostgaarden,00:27:26.23).
PerThuesenfromthetourismassociationinSlagelseexplainedhisthoughtsonwhythereisthe
problematic relationship between the cities, when we asked him if he could still feel the old
municipalitybordersandhowtheymightaffectcollaboration:
“Yes, indeed.Onemustacknowledgethat.Theyarestill there. IthinkthatSkælskør
andKorsørhavebeenseeingSlagelseasthebigbrotherwhohastakenitallnow.All
thattheyhadbeenbuildingupthroughdecadeshasnowbeenremovedbecauseithas
become a "greater municipality". And then there are these, may I say, "older
gentlemen"whohaveahardtimelettinggoofit.”
(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,00:09:29.01)
Thefactthatmostoftheboardmembersinthethreetourismassociationsisaround65,mightbe
thereasonwhytheyarehavingtroubleseeingthemunicipalityofSlagelseasonecoherenttourism
destination.Thelackofcollaborationbetweenthetourismassociationsisalsorecognizedbythe
tourism department. Puk Kirkeskov Hvistendal describing how she does not feel that they are
collaboration,orevencommunication(AppendixG,PukKirkeskovHvistendal,ProjectleaderCoastal
andNatureTourism,00:11:55.24).
We(SørenandChristoffer)weretalkingaboutthemergingofthemunicipalitiesinDenmarkin2007.
We are both around 30, and cannot really remember how itwas before themerging.We also
concludedthatwebothlivedinamunicipalitywhichdidnotchangename,butjustbecamelarger
sinceothermunicipalitiesmergedwithit.ThisisperhapswhyPerThuesenfromSlagelseseemsto
87
thinkthatitisabitsillytohaveconflictsaboutit,becauseheisfromthemunicipalitywhichjust
became larger in 2007. But he does, to some extent, understand how the other two old
municipalitiesmightfeelthatSlagelsehasbecomethe“bigbrother”intherelationship.
PerThuesenhimselfisreachinghisretiringage,soheisapartofthe“oldgentlemen”,butitseems
likeheistryingtounitethethreetourismassociations.
“LastyearIgotandinvitationtovisitthevintagebusmuseuminSkælskør.Iwasvery
exciting,andthemayorwasthere. Iwasvery impressed.Troels fromLandudvikling
Slagelsewasalsothere,andwealltalked.Thisresultedinthattheyearafteratthe
VikingFestivalinTrelleborg,wegotthesevintagebussestodriveinsteadoftheregular
busses.BythatweareindirectlysupportingthetourisminSkælskør.”
(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,00:10:29.12)
PerThuesenisdescribinghowtheassociationsinSlagelsereceive225.000dkr,Korsør150.000dkr
andSkælskør75.000dkr,andhowSkælskørfeltthattheywerenotgettingenough.
“ThisiswhereIhavechosentoopenup,becausewecannotliveinamunicipalitywith
threelargetourismassociationsthataregoingincompletelydifferentdirections.So,I
arrangedsomemeetingsbetweenus.Skælskørwasquick toback itupwhile ithas
beenabitslowerwithKorsør.Sometimestheyarenotansweringourrequests.”
(appendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,00:10:29.12)
So,PerThuesenisactivelytryingtoreachoutandstartingcollaborationnetworkbetweenthethree,
but as we have seen before, the tourism association in Korsør are not willing to attend these
networkmeeting.Astheexamplewiththebussesabove,thetourismassociationinSlagelseare
financiallytryingtohelpKorsørwithaballeteventthissummer.Perisdescribingitas“akindofflag
wavingfromourside”(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation,00:10:29.12).
TherelationshipbetweenSkælskørandSlagelseisstrong,butaccordingtoPerThuesenitisKorsør
who is blocking an overall collaboration between the associations. Tine Jensen fromMusholm
HolidayandConferenceCentre,whichisjustoutsideofKorsør,describeshowshecouldfeelonthe
locals that theysee themselvesas“fromKorsør -youarenot fromthemunicipalityofSlagelse”
88
(AppendixB,Tine Jensen,MusholmHolidayandConferenceCentre,00:10:35.17). If thegeneral
attitudeinKorsørisassuch,collaborationbetweenKorsørandtherestofthemunicipalitycanbe
hardtoestablish.
Asdiscovered,SkælskørandBisseruphavecreatedsomethingspecialforthemselves,butwhenthey
are strong local destination, it damages their willingness to involve other areas in their
development. The local community in the cities appears to affect the ambition of a joint
collaborativedestination,andthelocals’protectionoftheir“oldmunicipality”insomewaycourses
themcompetewitheachother.
Powerrelationsamongactors,LTOsandDMOs
Thispartoftheanalysiswill,throughthedatacollectedfromthesemi-constructedinterviewswith
tourismactorsandtheobservationstudy,investigatethepowerrelationsthatareinfluencingand
maybeevenhamperingthedevelopmentoftourismcollaborationsinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.
Asitwaspresentedtothereaderinthetheorychapter,inspirationtakenfromtheframeworkof
the four power dimensions, proposed by Beritelli and Laesser (2011), will be taken into
considerationaswellasDredges (2006) thoughtsonthecomplicatedrelationship thatcanarise
between tourism department and LTO’s. By analysing which dimensions are dominant in the
municipality,afurtherunderstandingofthechallengesofatourismcollaborationmaybeachieved.
The following partwill analyse upon the interviews and the observation study, and attempt to
determinewhichpowerdimensionarethemostdominant.
Hierarchicalpower
Duringtheresearch,therehasbeenfewindicationsofhierarchyasbeinganimportantinfluence
factoramongtourismactorsinthemunicipality.Interestinglyitseemsthatthehierarchicalpower
dimensionisadominantfactorbetweentheLTO’s,thetourismdepartmentandVisitVestsjælland.
PerThuesen,chairmanofSlagelseTourismOrganisation,wasseveral timesduringthe interview
hintingatapossiblehierarchicalstructurethat,tosomeextent,ishamperingthedevelopmentof
tourism collaborations in the municipality. When describing the work that Slagelse Tourism
89
Associationaredoing,andhowtheyaretryingtomakecollaborationsbetweenthesmalleractors,
PerThuesensaid:
“[…] they are small businesses and instead of them individually fighting for new
costumers, they shouldmarket themselves togetherwith others to create a bigger
market.And if thatdoesnotwork, thenwemust findsomeother ideas.Andthis is
perhaps the part where I think this whole collaboration thing is lacking - us, the
grassrootsintourismassociationsagainstVisitVestsjælland,therearenosupportat
all.Theyaresitting‘uphere’andwearealltheway‘downhere’.”(AppendixF,Per
Thuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation:00:07:34:22)
ThelastremarkaboutVisitVestsjællandbeing‘uphere’andthetourismassociationbeing‘down
here’ is particularly interesting in relation to a power dimensional aspect. It indicates that Per
ThuesenconsidersthehierarchicalpositionofVisitVestsjælland,assomeoneplacedabovethem,to
beaconstraint inthedevelopmentoftourismcollaborationsforthesmalleractors.Later inthe
interviewthelocalgovernmentisalsothetargetofthesamehierarchicalcriticism.Whenspeaking
abouthisdisappointmentof theexecutionandoutcomeof theworkshop,andhowthetourism
associationswasnotenoughinvolved,hesaid:
“[...] the local government does not understand it at all. And it is the same with
VisitVestsjælland.Theyareplacedatsomeshelvesaboveuswhereweapparentlydo
notbelong.Icanworkonthatleveltoo,butthatitnotwhatIamhiredfor.Iamhired
totakecareofandhelpactorswhomaybearehavingtroubleatgettingthemselves
established or things like that.” (Appendix F, Per Thuesen, Slagelse Tourism
Association:00:25:58:23)
HeistherebyindicatingthatthelocalgovernmentandVisitVestsjælland,becauseoftheirhigher
positions inthehierarchy,arenotcapableofsatisfyinglyworking inthe interestsofthetourism
actors.
Processpower
Processpowerinvolvesthecontroloverresourcesorworkflowsthatotheractorsinanetworkmight
bedependenton,butnoneoftheinterviewswithactors,northeLTOinSlagelsehasdirectlygiven
90
theimpressionthatitisanimportantpowerdimension.ItcanbearguedthatPerThuesenindirectly
areimplyingthatthelocalgovernmentandLandudviklingSlagelseareimportantbecausetheyare
responsible for allocating funds for tourismprojects. Theallocationof funds itself, can to some
degree be interpreted as a process power, and it can also be argued that strategies and
collaborationstherebycanbeinfluencedbyit.
Knowledgepower
BothPerThuesenofSlagelseTourismAssociationandSusanneAndersenfromDybkærgaardsees
knowledgeasanimportantfactorinthedevelopmentofatourismcollaboration.PerThuesenstates
severaltimesduringtheinterviewthathe,intermsoftourismexperience,isstillabeginnerthat
hasmuchtolearninthatfield,andthushintsthatheseesactorswithknowledgewithinthefieldof
tourismasinfluential.
Assetspower
WhenbeingatourismactororLTOinthemunicipalityofSlagelse,itseemsthatitcanbeeasierto
gain influence if one is controlling more financial resources than another. According to Per
Thuesen'sremarksaboutLandudviklingSlagelseandtheiractivitiesatthetourismworkshop,where
hecriticisesthemforovertakingtheagendatopromotetheirownbusinessandinterests,itseems
thattheyareinapositiontodothisbecausetheyareinafinancialstrongpositionbecauseofthe
EU-fundstheyaremanaging.Itmustalsobenotedthattheonlytourismactorswhohadspeaking
timeinfrontoftheassemblyattheworkshop,werethosewhohadalreadybeenawardedwith
funds for theirprojects.ThisallowsLandudviklingSlagelse topromoteprojects thatare in their
interest,andtheyarethusinapositiontosteertourismdevelopmentinthemunicipalityincertain
directionsandgaininfluenceuponhowtourismcollaborationsareformed.
RelationsbetweenlocalgovernmentandtheLTO’s
Duringtheresearch, itwasnotedhowtheLTO’s inthethreebigcitiesofSlagelse,Skælskørand
Korsørarehavinganotablycomplicatedrelationshipwitheachother.PerThuesenmentionshow
thetwoothertourismassociationshavefeltthatthemoneyfromthelocalgovernmenthasbeen
distributedunfairly:
91
“Thesefundshavebeendividedintoathree-two-oneratio,whereSlagelsegetsthree,
KorsørgetstwoandSkælskørgetsone.Andyoucouldfeelthattheythoughttheywere
notgettingenough.
ThisiswhereIhavechosentoopenup,becausewecannotliveinamunicipalitywith
threelargetourismassociationsthataregoingincompletelydifferentdirections.So,I
arrangedsomemeetingsbetweenus.Skælskørwasquick toback itupwhile ithas
been a bit slower with Korsør. Sometimes they are not answering our requests.”
(AppendixF,PerThuesen,SlagelseTourismAssociation:00:10:29:12)
Thisfeelingofbeingtreatedunfairlybythelocalgovernmentmightbetracedbacktothemerging
ofthethreeoldmunicipalities.AndaccordingtoPerThuesen,thetwoothershavefeltthatSlagelse
hasbeenprioritisedattheexpenseofthem:
“IthinkthatSkælskørandKorsørhavebeenseeingSlagelseasthebigbrotherwhohas
taken itallnow.All that theyhadbeenbuildingupthroughdecadeshasnowbeen
removedbecause ithasbecomea"greatermunicipality".Andthentherearethese,
mayIsay,"oldergentlemen"whohaveahardtimelettinggoofit.Andtheproblemis
that Slagelse, which is the biggest (also economically), we also have the hardest
conditions for tourism because we have not been that used to it before.” (Ibid.:
00:09:29:01)
ThestrainedrelationshipbetweenthecitiescanalsobeheardinJetteSøndergaard'sstoryofher
hotelandthepridethatthelocalsocietytakesinit.Hereitbecomesobviousthatthereisalmosta
typeofcompetitiongoingonbetweenSkælskørandKorsør,andthattherealmostisakindoflocal
patriotismamongtheresidentsinSkælskør:
“Justbeforeweopened,Igotnervousthatwewouldnotbeabletosellourroomsand
thattouristswouldnotliketheplace-IguessIwasabitcarefulbackthen.Buttoday,
HotelPostgårdenseemstobeapopularplaceinourlocalsocietyandpeopleseemto
beveryproudofthehotel.AndpeoplearenothidingtheirprideofHotelPostgården,
especiallytowardsKorsørwithwhomwehaveabitofarivalrybecausetheyarelike
92
an old enemy.” (Appendix A, Jette Søndergaard, Hotel Postgaarden Skælskør:
00:27:26:23)
Tine Jensen fromMusholmHolidayandConferenceCentrealsoconfirms that inKorsør, theold
bordersareinducingthesamekindoflocalpatriotism.Whenquestionedaboutherperceptionof,
ifthemunicipalityisfunctioningasacoherentdestination,sheanswered:
“Iknowthatthemunicipality,ifyouaskPuk(projectleaderatthemunicipality),she
wouldsaythatitisonebigunit.Iamnotoriginallyfromthisarea,somaybeIseeit
differently, butmy experience is that you are from Korsør - you are not from the
municipality of Slagelse. There are definitely still some signs of the old borders.”
(AppendixB,TineJensen,MusholmHolidayandConferenceCentre:00:10:35:17)
Lookingatthesestatementsfromthedifferentrespondents,itcaneasilybeinterpretedasifboth
SkælskørandKorsørareimmunetocommunicationandcollaborationproposals.ButPerThuesen
explainsthatSkælskørhasbeguntosoftenup,andthattheyareshowingsignsofwillingnessto
collaboratewiththeLTOandthetourismdepartment.Ontheotherhand,Korsørareapparently
muchhardertoconvince,evenwithacarefulapproach:
“ThenwehaveKorsør. Theyhave this big event this summerwith the royal ballet,
wheretheyhavetousealotofmoney.Andtherearetryingtoseeifwecanhelpwith
asmallamountofmoney,whichwedonothavethatmuchof,butyoucanseeitasa
kindof"flagwaving"fromourside.Toshowthemthatwearewillingtohelpifthey
wantourhelp,becausetheyareseeingusassomethingelse,assomeonewho"takes
itall".Butthatistheoldmunicipalitybordersspeaking,whereasithasbecomemuch
better with the relation to Skælskør.” (Appendix F, Per Thuesen, Slagelse Tourism
Association:00:10:29:12)
Again,itisworthtomentionthat,accordingtoPerThuesen,thereasoningforthisunwillingnessto
collaborate fromKorsør’s tourism association is because of the remains of the oldmunicipality
borders.
93
Fromtheinterviewsconducted,thereisageneralpointtowardshierarchyasbeingperceivedasthe
most influential power dimension among tourism actors in themunicipality. The LTO’s and the
actors seem to be working on a similar power level, while the tourism department and
VisitVestsjællandareperceivedasbeinginastrongerinfluentialpositionmostlybecauseoftheir
higherplacedhierarchicalstatus.Thepowerdimensionsofassetsandprocesspowerarealsobeing
deemedasimportant,andthesetwodimensionsareinthiscaseinsomewaysinterconnected.The
allocationsof funding seemtobe themain reasoningbehindandan important factor for some
actors.
Individualpowerrelations
It is interestingtonoticehowrespondentsareoftennamingotheractors individually insteadof
namingthebusinessesandinstances.Thisgivestheimpressionthattherearesomespecificpower
relationsbetweenindividualsthatarealsoinfluencingtheabilitytocreatetourismcollaborations.
Asitwastoucheduponearlierinthispartandinthemethodologychapter,severalattemptswere
madetogetincontactandplananinterviewwiththechairmanoftheLTOinKorsør.Beforehand,
Christofferwaswarnedbycolleaguesandhadhimselfexperiencedhowharditwastogetincontact
withthechairman,andthatherarelyparticipatesintourismnetworkmeetings.So,inthiscaseit
canbeinterpretedasifthechairmanoftheLTOinKorsørarehavingahigherlevelofpowerand
influencethantheassociationwhichheisapartof,becausehispersonallackofcommitmenttohis
positionaschairmanisblockingcollaboration.ThesamecanbesaidaboutPerThuesenfromthe
LTOinSlagelse.Asitwasseenearlierintheanalysis,he,asachairman,isverymuchinvolvedin
many initiatives related to tourism, and he ismentioned quite a few times by other actors as
someonewhoarehavingatruecommitmenttodevelopingtourisminthemunicipality.Thefact
that he ismentioned by namemore times than the TourismAssociation of Slagelse itself, tells
something about a relatively high level of power he as an individual has destination tourism
network.BeritelliandLaesserarguesthat indestinationplanning,power innetworks isnotonly
related to organisational structures but “[…] is also the expression of individual perceptions,
recognizabletothestakeholdergroupanindividualbelongs[…]”(BeritelliandLaesser,2011:1307).
94
Thelevelof individualpowerrelationssuggeststhatthesuccessoftheLTO’sandtheirabilityto
collaborateandcreatecollaborations,areverymuchdependentontheindividualswhoareacting
astheirexternalpresence.Similarly,thechairmanoftheanglerassociationwhowasattendingthe
workshopwithaquestionableagenda,wasalsoaninfluentialindividualthatshouldbenoticed.The
wayhespokeoutloudlyandhisalmostaggressiveappearanceattheworkshop,andthewaythat
thegovernmentofficialtalkedabouthim,gaveanimpressionofanindividualwithpowerrather
thananorganisationwithpower.
StateofcollaborationinthemunicipalityofSlagelse
Throughthisanalysiswehave lookatdifferentelements inrelationtohowcollaboration isata
destination, andhow it is influencedbynational strategies. Lastly it has been shownhow local
tourismactorsareinfluencedbycollaborationinthedestinationlevel,orthelackofit.
AsWilson,BuultjensandNielsen(2009)argues,earlierresearchislackinginareaofpublic/private
collaboration,andespeciallypartnershipsbetweenvoluntaryassociationsandcommercialtourism
organizations. What this analysis has offered is a look at how collaborations between local
government, commercial tourism organizations and voluntary tourism association, can be
challengingtoestablish,duetothedifferentobjectivesthatthesestakeholdershave.Ithasbeen
discovered, inrelationtoMartinSandback’sargumentaboutrecognizingthecommercialactors’
short-termobjectiveandtourismdevelopers’ long-termobjective, thatthere isaneedformore
research about how tomanage these differences in objectives, to successfully involve different
stakeholdersinthedevelopingprocessofadestination.
Themethodicalapproachused inthisresearchallowedaqualitativeunderstandingofhowlocal
tourism actors perceive the planning and development carried out by the destination level
stakeholder,suchasVisitVestsjællandandthetourismdepartment.Tourismactorsaretheones
howareincontactwiththetouristsonadailybasis,andthisanalysisshowedthatthereisaneed
for a coherent strategy for them to follow. The absent of a well-functioning destination level
network,havecoursedtheactorstolosetrustinthekeystakeholderorganizations,andageneral
confusionwasfoundinrelationtowhotourismactorssawasthedrivingforcewhenitcomesto
tourism development. The roles between VisitVestsjælland, the tourism associations and the
95
tourismdepartmenthasnotbeenwellcommunicated,anditappearsthattheircurrentrolesare
overlapping.Thisinsufficientuseofresources,bothintermsoffinanceandcompetences,courses
a slow tourismdevelopment,which is a shame sincemanypassionateandenthusiastic tourism
actorswerefoundduringthecollectingofinterviews.
An issue thatwas unfold during the analysiswas the conflict between citieswithin the overall
destination,whichhascreatedsmalllocaldestinationswithinthedestination.Whatwasfoundto
bethecourseofthis,wasthefactthatthemunicipalityofSlagelseusedtobethreemunicipalities
beforethemergingofmunicipalitiesin2007.Thisisahighlyinterestingtheoreticalarea,whichwill
be furtherdiscussed, sinceearlier researchhasnotexploredhow thismergingofmunicipalities
affectscollaborationinthe“new”municipality.Thisareofresearchcanreachfarbeyondtourism
theory,sinceitwasfoundthattheprimaryissueswererootedintheresidents’personalvaluesand
protectionoftheirowncity.
Theoriginalpointofdeparturefortheanalysiswastoinvestigatehowdestinationstrategieswas
influencedbythenationalstrategies,andhowtheyinfluencetourismactors,butwasunfoldduring
theresearchunfoldsomeinterestingnewquestions.ThisissomethingMurdoch(2006),Law(2004)
andLatour(2005)alsoargues,thatstudyingnetworksbygettingcloselyengageintheprocess,can
courseresponsesfromactorstosteertheresearchinanewdirection.
Thesequestionswillnowbediscussed,andsuggestionsonfurtherresearchareaswillbepresented.
96
Discussion
Theanalysissoughttoinvestigatehowcollaborationisunderstoodapproachedondifferentlevels,
withthemainfocusbeingonthedestinationlevel.Collaborationandpartnershipisrecognisedas
beinganimportantroleoftourismdevelopment,bothfromnationaltourismorganisationsandcan
betracedtothelocalgovernmentofSlagelse'stourismstrategy(eventhoughanofficialtourism
strategyisstillabsent).
The point of departure was that if the term ‘tourism collaboration’ is deeply implemented in
strategiesasakeywordfromthenationalleveltothedestinationlevel,howisitperceivedbythe
actorsinvolvedindestinationtourism.
For this research, it has not been too relevant to analyse and discuss what an overall tourism
strategyofthemunicipalityofSlagelseshouldcontain,buttheabsenceofithasaneffectonthe
tourismactors.Thelevelofcollaborationbetweenthetourismdepartmentandthetourismactors
issuffering,anditseemsliketheactorshavelosttrustinbothVisitVestsjælland’sandthetourism
department’s ability to lead the tourism development. At theworkshop and from some of the
tourismactorsinterviewed,itbecameclearthattoomanyinitiativeshavebeenlaunched,andthe
fadedawayagain.Morrison(2013)describeshowtourismactorsneedsacommonobjective,which
canbedonebycreatinganoveralltourismstrategyforthedestination.Astrategythatcanshow
tourismactorsthatthedestinationasawholeismovingforward,andastrategywhichtheactors
cancreateanddeveloptheirtourismproductsinrelationto.
Whatwasfoundthroughtheanalysiswasadivideddestinationinrelationtoseveralaspects.Firstly,
fromthedestinationlevelitwasdiscoveredthattheactorsdidnotseemtoknowwhichorganisation
isfunctioningastheoverallDMO,andtheanalysisalsoshowedthattheremayinfactnotbeaclear
answertothis.Itisinterestingtodiscusstheneedforcleardefinitionofwhatrolesthemaintourism
stakeholdersshouldhave,inordertocreateabetterorganisationalstructureinthetourismsector,
whichcanhelpenhance tourismdevelopment,andcreatebetter trust fromthe tourismactors.
Secondly,whatfurtherwillbediscussedishowlong-termandshort-termobjectiveareinfluencing
thecollaborationandhowitisapproached,andhowthedestinationlevelstakeholdersmightfind
asolutiontothisissue.
97
Thirdly,thedistancebetweenlocaltourismactorsandthetourismstrategiesbeingcarriedoutby
the tourism department and VisitVestsjælland were too far. There is a need for more actor
involvement,andneed for theactors to feelapartofacoherent tourismagenda.Fourthly, the
merging of municipalities in 2007 has had tremendous effect on collaboration within the
destination.IthascausedthedestinationofSlagelsetobe(remain)dividedintodestinationswitha
strong local anchoring and different perceptions of how tourism collaborations should be
approached.
Thegeneralconfusion–Theneedforaclearleader/DMO
Throughtheresearchitbecameclearthatthereisageneralconfusionfromthetourismactors,who
areuncertainofwhotheDMOofthedestinationinfactisandtherebywhoarehavingtheleading
roleinrelationtotourismdevelopment.Severaltimesitwasseenthatactors’showedfrustrations
of being told about different strategic plans, and the many different network meetings and
workshops with different themes, was resulting in lack of trust to the tourism planning
organisations.
Dredge(2006)arguesthat“therolesandresponsibilitiesoflocalgovernmentandtheLTOshouldbe
clearlyfocusedandarticulated”(Dredge, 2006: 278).
The two organisations with the competences and resources to be the DMO, is the tourism
department and VisitVestsjælland. If we look at this from a financial point of view, the local
governmenthasoriginallyoutsourcedtourismdevelopmentandmarketingtoVisitVestsjælland,by
creatingadestinationpartnershipwiththemunicipalitiesofSorøandKalundborg.
VisitVestsjælland’s2017strategyistofocusinproductdevelopment,professionalizationoftourism
actors, and branding of the destination (appendix L). So VisitVestsjælland is officially taking a
structuralandfunctionalapproachtotourismdevelopment,whichisdefinitelyneeded.Butwhat
can be seen as an issue is that these benefits are only for the paying partners, which is
understandablesinceVisitVestsjællandiscommercialbusiness.Withthatbeingsaid,itstillleaves
newactorsandactorswhodoesnotwanttobeapartofVisitVestsjælland’snetwork, inastage
wheretheydonothaveanorganisationtoguidethemandsupportthem.
As discovered during theworkshop, some actors have lost trust in VisitVestsjælland’s ability to
supportthem,butwasisimportanttorememberistheturbulenttimeVisitVestsjællandhashad.It
98
isarguablethattheyarenotinthepositionatthemomenttobeDMO,sincealeadershouldhave
theabilitiestomotivate,createcommitmentandenthusiasm,haveastrongvisionandanabilityto
getotherpeopleexcited(SelinandChavez,1994).DuringtheturbulenttimeinDecember2016,the
staffmembersatVisitVestsjællandwentfromtwelvetofour,andatemporarydirectorwasplaced
inchargeoftheorganisation.
OnthefirstofAugust2016,VisitVestsjællandwillhaveanewdirector,andtherebuildingoftrust
andcredibilitycanbegin,butthatisnotsomethingthathappensovernight.
Thetourismassociations,VisitVestsjællandandthetourismdepartmentareallworkingtowardsthe
sameobjective,thatistocreategrowthinthetourismindustry.Aroundfiveyearsagothetourism
potential inSlagelsewasrecognised,whichcourseddifferent interestgroupstotryanddevelop
tourisminthearea.Butsincetherewasnotajointrecognitionofissuestoaddress(Waddock,1989),
or a collaborativeprocess todeterminewhat thebrand shouldbe, it resulted inadisorganised
tourismeffortfromdifferentgroups.Tourismingeneralhascertainlynotbenefittedfromthat,but
moreimportant,ithasconfusedtourismactorstotheextent,thattheyhavebecomeindoubtabout
whototrustorfollow.
Collaborationis lackingbetweenthethree,whicharecoursingactorstonotknowingwhoisthe
leadingforce.Whatisimportanttonoticeisthemanydifferentorganisationsandgroupsworking
withtourism.Ifwelookisolatedateachofthem,thedestinationofSlagelsehasmanywell-meaning
initiatives,butitmightbebeneficialtomoreclearlydividetheresponsibilities.Thecreationofthe
tourismstakeholdernetworkbetweenthetourismandbusinessassociations,VisitVestsjællandand
thetourismdepartment,mightbethedestinationlevelcollaborationwhichhasbeenmissing,and
asJamalandStronza(2009)argues:“collaborationprovidesforaflexibleanddynamicprocessthat
evolvesovertime,enablingmultiplestakeholdersto jointlyaddressproblemsor issues” (Jamal&
Stronza,2009).Thetourismstakeholdernetworkwillevolveovertime,andprojectleaderinthe
localgovernmentPukKirkeskovHvistendalassuredthatthenetworkisheretostay.
Anotherside-effectoftheuncleardistributionofroles,isthattourismfinancialresourcesarenot
utilizedproperly.BoththenationaltourismstrategyandKL’stourismsuggestionsarearguingthat
joiningof resources isacrucialaspectof tourismdevelopment,somethingthatscholarssuchas
99
Haugland,Ness,GrønsethandAarstad(2010)andMorrison(2013)alsoisarguingfor.Onethingis
thatthelocalgovernmentarespendingfourmillionayearonVisitVestsjælland,butareinfactstill
doingthetasksthemselves,becauseVisitVestsjællandhasnotliveduptotheagreementlately,but
anotherproblemisthetimetourismactorshavetoinvesttoattendthelargeamountofmeetings.
SuanneAndersenfromDybkærgaardcomplainedaboutthemanymeetingsshehastogoto,and
howthesamethingsarebeingdiscussedwithdifferenttourismdevelopers(AppendixE,Susanne
Andersen, Dybkærgaard, 00:22:28.03). It can be argued that this is also leading to a lack of
willingness to support the different networks and tourism planning stakeholders, because the
tourismactorsfeelthatthedestinationlevelisnotcoordinated.
Thereisanimplicationwiththelackofcoordinationandroledistributionbetweenthethreeprimary
stakeholdersworkingwithtourismdevelopment.ItishardtodeterminewhoistheDMO,butitis
betweenthetourismdepartmentandVisitVestsjælland,anditcanbearguedthatitcanbeafine
solution,aslongastherolesandtasksareclearlydividedthem.Whatisinterestingtodiscuss,is
how collaboration within the tourism sector of Slagelse can benefit from a more structured
approach,sothetwoorganizationscansuccessfullycooperatetobeajointDMO.
Acleardefinitionofroledistributionbetweentourismassociations,VisitVestsjællandandthetourism
department
TheleadingforcesinrelationtotourismdevelopmentinthemunicipalityofSlagelse,isthetourism
department,VisitVestsjællandandthetourismassociations-tosomeextent.Theirstrategiesare
overlapping,andtourismactorsareconfusedaboutwhohaswhatresponsibilities,ashavebeen
discussedabove.
Inthefollowingsection,itwillbediscussedhowtherolescanbedividedinawaythatcaneasethe
confusiononthetourismactor level,aswellasonthetourismplanninganddevelopment level,
becauseitappearsthatnoonetrulyknowseachother’sresponsibilities.
Thetourismdepartment
Whatthetourismdepartmentpossesses,comparedtotheothers,islegitimacy,authority,financial
resourcesandtheconnectiontootherdepartmentswithinthelocalgovernment,whocanaffect
100
tourism development. These attributes are necessary to develop long-term tourism initiatives,
which should be the primary focus of the tourism department. But the role of the tourism
department should also be to ensure a constant close relation to the business and tourism
associations and VisitVestsjælland, by further developing the tourism stakeholder network
meetings,asdescribedintheanalysis.
AsarguedbyJamalandGetz,(1995)andGray(1989),stakeholdergroupshavetorecognizetheir
interdependence,andacontinuoussharingofknowledge,jointownershipofdecision-making,and
acollectiveresponsibilityfortheongoingdirectionofthedestination,issomethingthatcanbethe
outcomeofasuccessfultourismstakeholdernetwork.Thetourismdepartmentmustthroughthe
tourismstakeholdermeetings,convincethebusinessassociationsofthebenefitsofjoiningtourism
initiatives.
VisitVestsjælland
The destination partnership with VisitVestsjælland should be limited to marketing, and the
supportingof theirpayingpartners.Theirprimary role shouldbe tomarket tourismactors,and
communicate the brand that derives from the long-term strategy carried out by the tourism
department.Workshops and supporting of actors, is as of now only for the partners, which is
understandablesinceitisaservicethepartnersarepayingfor.TheconcernaboutVisitVestsjælland
onlymarketstheirpartners,hasearlierbeenraised.ItisstronglysuggestedthatVisitVestsjælland
markets all actors, activities and events, because they are by far the strongest marketing
organisation,andtheyhavedoneasuccessfuljobinthepast.Actorsnotbeingmarketedbythem,
willbe leftalmost invisible inthetourismmarketofthedestination,and itcanbehardfornew
tourismentrepreneurstoattracttourists.
Thetourismassociations
Tobeamemberofthetourismassociationsdoesnotcostanything,whichmeansthattheyhavea
lotofthesmalleractorsintheirnetwork.AsDianneDredge(2006)describes,tourismactorscanbe
part of different networks at the same time,which is also the casehere.Many tourismactors,
including Dybkærgaard, are members of both the tourism association of Slagelse, and
VisitVestsjælland.Thetourismassociationsmainroleshouldbetosupportandguidethetourism
actors that are not a part of VisitVestsjælland’s network, to avoid any tourism actors to stand
101
outsideofatourismnetwork.Theirsecondroleshouldbetorepresentthelocaltourismactors’
short-terminterestsatthetourismstakeholdermeetings,facilitatedbythetourismdepartment.
Thiswillensureacloserlinkbetweenthelocaldestinationandthetourismplanningorganisation,
whichPerThuesenarguesarehavingatooacademicapproachforthetourismactorstofollow.
They must encourage their actors to look beyond their local destination, so the continues
collaborationprocesscanbesupportedfromthelocallevel,tothedestinationlevel.Theproblem
isthattheboardmembersatthethreetourismassociationsareallvoluntaryworkers,whichmeans
itishardtodemandthemtodospecifictasks.ThelackofKorsør’sinvolvementincollaborations,
and the absent of support to their members, must be addressed. Slagelse tourism association
carried out a replacement of boardmembers a few years back,which leaded to amuchmore
productiveassociation. Itmightbe time forKorsør todothesame,andmaybereplace the“old
gentlemen”,asPerThuesendescribedthemas.Thelackcollaborationbetweentheassociationsare
influencing theirmembers, so this something thatmust be sortedout on thedestination level.
Individualsmindcanbeeasiertochanges,thanawholeassociation(Trist,1979),sobyhavingthe
rightkindofpeoplecangreatlyinfluencethenetworktheyarein(SelinandChavez,1994)
Recognitionoflong-termdestinationstrategies,andshort-termlocalinterests
Thetourismactorswhowasinterviewedduringthisresearch,allseemedtonotknowmuchabout
whatisgoingoninrelationtoplanninganddevelopmentinthedestinationlevel.Afewofthem
hadsomebasicknowledgeaboutthecoastalandnaturetourismproject,butdidnotfeelapartof
theproject.MartinSandbach, formerheadofResearchat theBritishTourismAuthority,hasan
interestingargumentinrelationtothis:
“Idon’tbelievewehavebeenhonestenoughwithourselves inrecognisingthatour
commercialpartnershaveashort-termviewoftheworldandwe,asNTOs[national
tourismorganisations]arechargedbygovernmenttohaveamedium-termor long-
termoutlook.”
(MartinSandbach,in:Morgan,Pritchard&Piggott,2003)
Thisargumentalignswithwhathasbeenpreviouslydiscussedaboutthetourismdepartmenthaving
along-termobjective,andthetourismassociations,whomarerepresentingthelocalactors,having
102
ashort-termperspective.Itisarguablethatthereasonthatcollaborationsandtrustisdifficultto
establishbetween the tourismdepartmentand the tourismassociations, isdue to thedifferent
timeframestheyhavesetfortheirinitiatives.Dredge(2006)arguesthat“localgovernmentcanonly
representwhatitperceivestobetheissuesandinterestsofthebroadercommunity”(Dredge,2006:
278),whichalignswiththisdiscussion’ssuggestionsonhowtheresponsibilitiesshouldbedivided,
as seen in the previous section. The work carried out by the tourism departmentmay be too
“academic”asPerThuesenargues,butisimportantfortheongoingdevelopmentofthedestination,
thatthetourismdepartmentastheselong-termprojectsasthecoastalandnaturetourismproject.
Fordestinationtodifferentiateitselfonthetourismmarket,thedestinationneedssomekindof
themethatovertimewillbeadoptedbythetourismactors.Forittobecomeacceptedbythelocal
actorsitmustbesomethingthattheyfeelthelocalgovernmentareseeingasalong-termobjective,
andsomethingitisworthtoinvestinfromthelocaltourismactors.
For the local actors to trust the long-termplan of the tourism department, theymust not feel
forgotten.Asmentionedabove,itisheretheroleofthetourismassociationsandVisitVestsjælland
is important, and here they must take responsibility. They must represent the tourism actors’
interestinthedestinationplanningprocess,tomakesurethattheirshort-terminterestisnotbeing
overlookeddoingtheworkwithalong-termdestinationstrategy.
Itmustbeunderstoodbyallmembersasthetourismstakeholdernetwork,thatthelong-termand
short-termobjectivesareequally important for theongoingdevelopment.Butoneorganisation
cannotbe in chargeofboth, so it ishere themembersof the tourismstakeholdernetworkare
interdependent.Svensson,NordinandFlagestad,(2005)arguesthataproblemwithanetworkand
gettingmembersofitinvolvedisthattheycannotsurethattheirpresencemakesadifference.To
takethatargumentabitfurther,itisarguablethatinmosttourismdevelopmentatthedestination
level,theoutcomecanfirstbeseenonthelongrun,sotheassociationsmustbeconvincedthat
theirpresenceovertimewillinfluencethedestinationforthebetter.
103
Localanchoringintheoldmunicipalities,andindividualpowerrelations
Asitwastoucheduponintheanalysis,thisresearchhasshownthatthereisasurprisinglyhighlevel
ofcompetitionbetweenthethreebigcitiesinthemunicipality.Therespondentshaveall,atsome
levelduringtheinterviews,hintedthatthiscompetitionbetweenthecitiescanbetracedbackto
whenitwasstilldividedintothethreemunicipalitiesofKorsør,SlagelseandSkælskør.Theresidents
aretakingabigprideintheircitiesandtheirhistory-whichofcourseisnotunusual,butithasalso
becomeabarrierthattosomeextentisblockingthehealthydevelopmentoftourismcollaboration
betweenthelocaltourismassociations.
Inrecentyears,afterthereplacementoftheirboardmembers,Slagelse’stourismassociationhas
beguntoacknowledgethatthecollaborationandcommunicationbetweenthetourismassociation
areinadequateandthateffortsmustbemadetobuilditup.Thetwoothertourismassociations,
especiallytheoneinKorsør,havebeenshowingareluctancetocreatecollaborationsacrossthe
cities.Sinceitunfortunatelyprovedtobeimpossibletogetinterviewswiththeleadersofthesetwo
tourismassociations,onecanonlyguessabouttheirmotivationsbehindtheirreluctance.Butitis
repeatedlysuggestedintheinterviewsthatthismayberelatedtoapresenceoflocalanchoringand
that some of the boards still consist of members who have been sitting since when the
municipalitieswerenotyetmergedintothecurrentstate.Itishintedthatthetourismassociation
board inKorsør isconsistingof ‘oldgentlemen’whoarenot interested inanycross-citytourism
collaborations in the municipality. This means that the tourism association in Korsør actually
possessesahighlevelofpowerbecausethey,withtheirunwillingnesstocollaborate,areinfluencing
thedevelopmentofamorecoherenttourismcollaborationinthemunicipality.Itcanbearguedthat
thetourismassociationinKorsørcouldsimplybeleftoutofthecollaboration,butthatishardlya
possibilityasitwouldalsoleavethesmallertourismactorsinthecityout.Thesizeandresourcesof
thelocalgovernmentinthemunicipalityarenotsufficientenough,thattheyarecapableofreaching
alltourismactorswithoutthehelpofthelocaltourismassociation,aspreviouslydiscussed.Inboth
Beritelli and Laessers (2011) and Dredges (2006) studies of power relations in networks it was
arguedthattherelationsbetweenactors,LTO’sandlocalgovernmentsintheirspecificstudiescould
be related to a ‘Foucaultdian’ perspective of power. Here it is argued that power relations are
decentralizedandisconstantlyanddynamicallychangingbetweenactorsandindividuals.Inthat
104
perspective,inthiscase,itisinterestingtoseehowthepowerandinfluenceofindividualsareboth
creatingpossibilitiesbutalsoimpossibilitiesfortourismcollaborations.AsSelinandChavez(1994)
proposes, individual characteristics have a significant influence on creating and shaping
partnershipsintourism.
AsthechairmanofthetourismassociationintheSlagelse,PerThuesen,ismentioning,theyhaveat
their tourism association been trying to reach out to the other tourism associations in the
municipality.Hementionsthattheyareassuminga‘bigbrother’roleintherelationshipbyoffering
help,bothfinancialandotherkindsofsupport,tobothKorsørandSkælskør.Asitwastouchedupon
in theanalysis,Skælskørhasbegun tosoftenupandshowsmoreandmore interest increating
collaborationsacrossthecities.Ontheotherhand,thetourismassociation inKorsør isstillvery
reluctanttoattendmeetingsandpreliminarymeasuresfordevelopingcollaborations.Inthisregard,
is it interesting toobservehowPer Thuesen is taking it as amatterof course that the tourism
associationinSlagelsehastotaketheroleofthe‘bigbrother’inthemunicipality.
Byassumingthisroleasthe‘bigbrother’thetourismassociationinSlagelsemaybeinadvertently
pushingtheothers,especiallyKorsør,awaybecausetheywillthenseethemassomeonewhowants
tobethedominantfactorinthemunicipality,andassomeonewhoarenotworkingonequalterms
withthem.Inthesamemanner,thetourismassociationinSlagelseisalso,perhapsunintentionally,
placingthemselveshigherinthehierarchy.Therebygivingthemselvesthesamehigherhierarchical
statuswhich,accordingtoPerThuesen,ishamperingthecollaborationbetweentheLTOinSlagelse
andthelocalgovernment.
Inthesouthernpartofthemunicipality,thetownofBisseruparequietlydevelopingtheirownsmall
well-functioninglocaldestination.Thishashappenedalmostwithoutanysupportfromthetourism
associationinSkælskørandthelocalgovernment.Thus,theyseemsomewhatunaffectedbythe
competitionthatcanbefeltbetweentheothercities,astheydonotreallyidentifywithanyofthem.
BeforethemergingofthethreeoldmunicipalitiestheywereunderthemunicipalityofSkælskør,
butareactuallygeographicallyclosertothecityofNæstved.Thismightexplainwhytheyarenot
showinganykindofengagementtotheoveralltourismdevelopmentinthecurrentmunicipalityas
theymight feel themselves too distanced from tourism actors in the other cities. Instead they
105
actuallyhaveawishtotonedownthetourismactivitiesinBisserupasthecityisclosetoreaching
an overcapacity of tourists during the high seasons, and thus they are not, at the moment,
interestedinbeingdrawnintomoretourismnetworksorcollaborations.
Throughtheanalysis,itwasfoundthattheselocaldestinationswithinthedestinationisrootedin
theresidents,andtheirdesiretoprotecttheir“oldmunicipality”.Whenitisrootedinvaluesand
thedestinationsisledbytourismassociationwith“oldgentlemen”,itisarguablethatitwilltakea
longtimechangethesevalues.Achangeinperceptionandvaluecannotbeforcedbythedestination
level,butitissomethingthatshouldbeworkedtowards.Maybeabetterrelationshipbetweenthe
tourismassociations,caninfluencethelocaltourismactors.
How themerging of municipalities has influenced the understanding and approach to tourism
collaborationisquite interesting,andthisresearchopensupforaseeminglyunexploredfieldof
tourism studies. Thismight shedanew lighton implications thatmayarise in the creationand
development of tourism collaborations on amunicipal level. This research has shown how the
understandinganduseoftourismcollaborationsinamunicipalcanbeaffectedandhamperedby
deeplyembeddedvaluesandmeaningsinindividualsthatstemsfromtheirlocalanchoringanda
weakattachmenttothepresentstateofthemunicipality.
106
Conclusion
Theresearchinthisthesishadthepurposeofexploringhowtourismcollaborationisunderstood
andusedinthemunicipalityofSlagelse.Whenlookingthroughstrategiesandsuggestionsfromthe
national level to the local level, it has shown that tourismcollaboration isbeingperceivedas a
commonelement intourismdevelopment,butthat it lacksaclearspecificationfromthehigher
levels.
The strategies of the local government and VisitVestjælland are very similar, which leads to a
confusion among the tourismactors and tourismassociation. Thiswas seenduring the tourism
workshop,andthetourismstakeholdermeetings,facilitatedbythetourismdepartment.Itappears
thatthedifferenceinlong-termandshort-termobjectives,ishinderingthecollaborationbetween
thetourismdepartment,VisitVestsjællandandtourismassociations,sincetheyallhavedifferent
interestsandexpectationsoftourismdevelopmentshouldbeapproach.Itisrecognisedthatthere
is a need for both short and long-term tourism objectives, but one organisation cannot be
responsibleforboth.Therefore,itissuggestedthatthetourismdepartment,withtheresourcesand
competencestheypossess,isresponsibleforthelong-termobjectives,andthetourismassociations,
withtheircloserelationtothelocaldestinationlevel, isresponsibleforthelocaltourismactors’
short-terminterests.
ThereisaneedforaclearerdefiningofrolesandresponsibilitiesbetweenVisitVestsjællandandthe
tourismdepartment,sincethebothcanbeperceivedasDMOs.Ithasbeenarguedthattheroleas
DMOcanbedividedbetweenthetwo,aslongastheydistributeresponsibilitiesbetweenthem.The
tourismassociationsareplayinganimportantrole,inrelationtosupportingandrepresentingthe
local tourism actors’ interests in the tourism stakeholder network. However, the lack of
coordinationofrolesonthedestinationlevel,combinedwiththelocalanchoring,whichoriginates
fromtheoldmunicipalities,greatlyaffectsthetourismassociationscollaborationwitheachother.
Themerging of the three oldmunicipalities proved to have a great influence on how tourism
collaborationsarenegotiatedandcreatedinthepresentstateofthemunicipalityofSlagelse.
Powerrelationsamongtourismactors,thetourismassociationsandthetourismdepartment,are
largelyinfluencedbysocialrelationsbetweenindividuals,insteadoftheinstancestheyareapart
of.Asuccessfulcollaborationbetweenthesedependsmostlyontheindividualswhonegotiateit,
andtheirapproachtotheirpositionintheirassociation/organisationarehavinganimpactfuleffect
107
onthetourismactors’abilitytocollaborate.Thisresearch,withaqualitativeapproach,hasthrough
itsqualitativefindingspresentedacontributiontotheunderstandingofthe,whathasshowntobe
averycomplex,term‘tourismcollaboration’withinthefieldoftourismnetworkandpowerrelations
theory. Furthermore, therehasbeenpresentedanopening to anunexplored fieldofmunicipal
tourismstudiesinDenmarkandhowthenowdisbandedmunicipalitiesareinfluencingtourism.
108
Literature
Baker,W.(1992).Thenetworkorganizationintheoryandpractice.InR.G.Eccles(Ed.),Networks
andorganizations:structure,formandaction(pp.397–429).Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.
Beritelli,P.;Laesser,C.(2011).Powerdimensionsandinfluencereputationintouristdestinations:
Empiricalevidencefromanetworkofactorsandstakeholders.TourismManagementVol.32pp.
1299-1309
Botterill,D.;Platenkamp,V.(2012)KeyConceptsinTourismResearch.SAGEPublicationsLtd
Bramwell,B.;Meyer,D.(2007)Powerandtourismpolicyrelationsintransition.AnnalsofTourism
Research,Vol.34pp.766-788
Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative Interviewing: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford
UniversityPress
Brinkmann, S.; Tanggaard, L. (2010). KvalitativeMetoder: En Grundbog.Hans Reitzels Forlag 1.
Edition
Bryman,A.(2012).SocialResearchMethods4theditionOxfordUniversityPress
CopenhagenCentre.
Crouch,D.;Desforges,L.(2003).TheSensuousintheTouristEncounter:Introduction:ThePowerof
theBodyinTouristStudies.TouristsStudies3:pp.5–22.
Dredge,D.(2006).Policynetworksandthelocalorganisationoftourism.TourismManagement,Vol.
27pp.269-280
Dredge,D.(2016)InstitutionalandPolicySupportforTourismSocialEntrepreneurship
Dredge,D.(2006).Policynetworksandthelocalorganisationoftourism
109
Dredge, D. (2010) Place Change and Development Conflict: Evaluating Public Interest Tourism
Managementvol.31(1)pp.104-112
Erchul,W.P.;Raven,B.(1997).SocialPowerinSchoolConsultation:AContemporaryViewofFrench
andRaven’sBasesofPowerModel.JournalofSchoolPsychology,vol.35,No.2pp.137-171
Flyvbjerg,B.(2006).Socialsciencethatmatters
Fyall, A.; Garrod, B.;Wang, Y. (2012).Destination collaboration: A critical review of theoretical
approachestoamulti-dimensionalphenomenon.JournalofDestinationMarketing&Management
1(2012)pp.10–26
French,J.R.P.;Raven,B.(1959)TheBasesofSocialPower.ClassicsofOrganizationTheory
Gray,B.(1989).Collaborating:FindingCommonGroundforMultipartyProblems.SanFrancisco
Hollinshead, K. (2006). The Shift to Constructivism in Social Inquiry: Some Pointers for Tourism
StudiesTourismRecreationResearch,vol.31(2)pp.43-58
Jacobsen, M. H. (2001). Konstruktionen af Socialkonstruktivismen – begrebsforvirring og
terminologiskanarkiisociologienJournalofSocialTheory,2:3pp.111-132
Jamal,T.;Gertz,A.(1995).CollaborationTheoryandCommunityTourismPlanning
Jamal, T.; Stronza, A. (2009) Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas:
stakeholders,structuringandsustainability.JournalofSustainableTourism,17:2,pp.169-189
Jensen,E.(2001).TheHighImpactofLowTechinSocialWork.OutlinesCriticalSocialStudies.pp.
81–87.
Jiménez-Anca, J. J. (2012)Beyond Power: Unbridging Foucault andWeber. European Journal of
SocialTheory16pp.36-50
110
Kvale,S.(2007).DoingInterviews.SAGE
Lankford,S.V.;D.R.Howard(1994).DevelopingaTourismImpactAttitudeScale.AnnalsofTourism
Research21:121-139
Latour,B.(2005).ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductioninActor-Network-Theory.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Law,J.(1994)OrganizingModernity.Oxford:Blackwell.
Law,J.(2004)AfterMethod:MessinSocialScienceResearch.Oxon:Routledge.
Law, J.;Hetherington, K. (1999).Materialities, Spatialities,Globalities. Department of Sociology,
Lancaster
Månson,P.(2007)inAndersen,Heine;Kaspersen,LarsBoKlassiskogModerneSamfundsteori
Morgan, N., J.; Pritchard, A., and Piggott, R. (2003) Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders:ThecaseofNewZealand.JournalofVacationMarketing
Morrison,A.(2013)MarketingandManagingTourismDestinations
Morrison,A.M.(2013).Destinationpartnershipsandteam-buildingInDestinationMarketingand
Management(chapter6)pp.189-220
Murdoch,J.(2006)Post-structuralGeography.London:Sage.
Nelson,J.;Zadek,S.(2000)PartnershipAlchemy-NewSocialPartnershipsinEurope
NoelB.S.(2012).Community-basedculturaltourism:issues,threatsandopportunities.Journalof
SustainableTourism
Pernecky, T. (2012). Constructionism: Critical Pointers for Tourism Studies Annals of Tourism
Research,vol.39(2)pp.1116-1137
111
Pfeffer, J.; Salancik,G. R. (2003)The External Control ofOrganizations: A ResourceDependence
Perspective.StanfordBusinessBooks
Rhodes,R.A.W.(1997)UnderstandingGovernance:PolicyNetworks,Governance,Reflexivityand
Accountability.Buckingham,Phil.:OpenUniversityPress.
Ritchie, B.W.; Burns, P.; Palmer, C. (2005).TourismResearchMethods: IntegratingTheorywith
PracticeCABIPublishing
Saunders,M;Lewis,PhilipandThornhill,Adrian(2009)ResearchMethodsforBusinessStudents5.
EditionPEARSONEducation
Selin,S.;ChavezD.(1994).CharacteristicsofSuccessfulTourismPartnerships:AMultipleCaseStudy
Design
Sheehan, L. R.; Ritchie, B. J.R. (2005)Destination Stakeholders: Exploring Identity and Salience.
AnnalsofTourismResearch,vol.32pp.711-734
Svensson,B.;Nordin,S.;Flagestad,A.(2005)Agovernanceperspectiveondestinationdevelopment-
exploringpartnerships,clustersandinnovationsystems,TourismReview,Vol.60Issue:2,pp.32-37
Tribe,J.(2005).NewTourismResearch.TourismRecreationResearch30:5–8
Trist, E. L., (1979).New Directions of Hope: Recent Innovations Interconnecting Organizational,
Industrial,CommunityandPersonalDevelopment.
Urry,J.(2002).TheTouristGaze(seconded.).London:Sage.
VanDerDuim,R.(2007).TOURISMSCAPESAnActor-NetworkPerspective.Pergamon
Wahyuni,D. (2012).TheResearchDesignMaze:UnderstandingParadigms,Cases,Methodsand
MethodologiesJournalofAppliedManagementAccountingResearch,vol.10pp.69-80
112
Wearing,S.;McDonald,M.(2002).TheDevelopmentofCommunity-basedTourism:Re-thinkingthe
Relationship Between Tour Operators and Development Agents as Intermediaries in Rural and
IsolatedAreaCommunities.JournalofSustainableTourism,10:3,pp.191-206
Weber,M.(1921).PolitikalsBeruf.GesammeltePolitischeSchriften,pp.396-450
Wilson,E.;Nielsen,N.;Buultjens,J.(2009)Fromlesseestopartners:exploringtourismpublic–private
partnershipswithintheNewSouthWalesnationalparksandwildlifeservice,JournalofSustainable
Tourism,17:2,pp.269-285
Wood, D.J.; B. Gray, (1991). Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The Journal of
AppliedBehavioralScience27
Websites
SlagelseKommune:
http://design.slagelse.dk/grundelementer/logo
Retrieved:30/5-2017
KommunernesLandsforening(KL):
http://www.kl.dk/Om-KL/
Retrieved:27/4-2017
http://www.kl.dk/Erhvervs--og-regionaludvikling/Debat-Succes-i-dansk-turisme-kraver-
samarbejde-id210741/
Retrieved:27/4-2017
VisitVestsjælland:
http://www.visitvestsjaelland.dk/destinationsselskabet-visitvestsjaelland
Retrieved:28/4-2017
113
Kultunaut:
www.kultunaut.dk
Retrieved:5/5-2017
KunsterlagetKIT:
www.kunstkit.dk
Retrieved:10/5-2017
BusinessSlagelse:
business-slagelse.dk/fileadmin/files/pdf/Business_Slagelse_-_Strategi_2016.pdf
Retrieved:2/5-2017
SkønneSkælskør:
https://skonne-skaelskor.dk
Retrieved:19/5-2017