This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 21:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tourism Geographies: An International Journal ofTourism Space, Place and EnvironmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: ComparativePerspectives on Institutional Networking in Franceand IrelandMary Cawley a , Jean-Bernard Marsat b & Desmond A. Gillmor ca Department of Geography , National University of Ireland , Galway, Irelandb Dynamics and Functions of Rural Areas , Cemagref, Aubière, Francec Department of Geography , Trinity College , Dublin, IrelandPublished online: 30 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Mary Cawley , Jean-Bernard Marsat & Desmond A. Gillmor (2007) Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism:Comparative Perspectives on Institutional Networking in France and Ireland, Tourism Geographies: An InternationalJournal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 9:4, 405-420, DOI: 10.1080/14616680701647626

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680701647626

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Tourism GeographiesVol. 9, No. 4, 405–420, November 2007

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism:Comparative Perspectives on InstitutionalNetworking in France and Ireland

MARY CAWLEY∗, JEAN-BERNARD MARSAT∗∗& DESMOND A. GILLMOR†∗Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland∗∗Dynamics and Functions of Rural Areas, Cemagref, Aubiere, France†Department of Geography, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

ABSTRACT This paper investigates the roles of horizontal and vertical networking in pro-moting integrated rural tourism (IRT) through a comparative study of the West Region ofIreland and the Auvergne region of France. New regional and local partnerships and territo-rial structures have been established in both countries during recent decades but control oftourism policy remains centralized to a greater or lesser extent, resulting in feelings of limitedrepresentation among smallerscale producers who are at the centre of the integrated tourismmodel studied in SPRITE (Supporting and Promoting Integrated Tourism in Europe’s LaggingRural Regions). Differences between the regions include greater executive power at regionaland local scales in France, which is conducive to more extensive horizontal networking, andmore successful vertical networking for promotion and marketing in Ireland. Lessons may belearned from both for the more effective promotion of IRT.

KEY WORDS: Networking, partnerships, France, Ireland, integrated rural tourism

Introduction

The SPRITE (Supporting and Promoting Integrated Tourism in Europe’s LaggingRural Regions) project was designed to analyse and develop the potential for betterintegrated rural tourism (IRT) in the lagging rural regions of Europe. IRT was de-fined as tourism that is linked explicitly into the economic, social, cultural, naturaland human structures of the localities where it takes place (Jenkins and Oliver 2001;Saxena et al. 2007). In this way, the research is located within a ‘culture economy’approach as defined by Ray (1998, 1999), who has suggested that rural producers whopossess limited potential to compete on the basis of scale economies, can pursue busi-ness growth successfully by capitalizing on distinctive features of local culture and

Correspondence Address: Mary Cawley, Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Galway,Ireland. Fax: 353-91-495505; Tel.: 353-91-492171; Email: mary.cawley@nuigalway.ie

ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /07/04/00405–16 C© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14616680701647626

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

406 M. Cawley et al.

environment. ‘Commodification’ of culture and environment in this way is alignedclosely with the promotion of IRT, involving complementary use of local resources,empowerment of local entrepreneurs and promotion of the sustainability of environ-ment, economy, society and culture. Several actors are involved in promoting IRT(entrepreneurs, controllers of resources for tourism, tourists, tour operators, institu-tions and host communities). One of the five main objectives of the SPRITE projectfocused on the local, regional and national institutional structures within which IRToperates. The institutional role relates to four key stages in the chain from productionto market: (1) the policy and planning context; (2) the business support context; (3) theregulatory context; and (4) the marketing context. At least twenty institutions wereselected in a purposeful way for interview purposes in each of the two study regionsin the six countries involved in the project (see Saxena et al. 2007 for further details).

This paper presents the results of the institutional survey research, with particularreference to the West Region of Ireland and the Auvergne region of France. Thesetwo regions provide particularly appropriate contexts within which to conduct a com-parative study of the role of networking in relation to IRT, because of the wide rangeof pertinent public, private and community/voluntary institutions that were identifiedand interviewed in both, operating at scales from the local to the national. Somecontrasts are present between aspects of the respective institutional structures andthe promotion of the regions: there is a greater diversity of sub-regional and localstructures in the Auvergne but tourism is better established in the West Region andfeatures more strongly in national overseas tourism promotion. Tourism is viewed inpolicy terms as having a key role to play in the development of lagging rural regionsin both countries. In analysing the institutional role, use is made of the concept of‘networking’, drawing on recent research suggesting that a focus on the links betweenactors and places has particular merit in understanding and pursuing rural develop-ment (Murdoch 2000). The paper begins by explaining the rationale for focusing oninstitutional networking. The main institutions pertinent to IRT promotion in Irelandand France are then described and the sampled institutions for the two study regionsare introduced. The role of networking in promoting IRT in the two regions is as-sessed. Particular attention focuses on local horizontal networking versus non-localvertical networking. See Saxena et al. (2007) for a more detailed discussion of therelationship between networking and IRT.

Embedding, Disembedding, Networking and Promoting IRT

The concept of commodifying local resources as a method of contributing to ruraldevelopment has been advocated by both the OECD (1995) and the Commissionof the European Communities (1996) and is present in many forms of contemporarytourism (Shaw and Williams 2002). Finding the most effective ways of capturing localresources for commercial purposes, whilst at the same time protecting them, is a keyconcern of sustainable or integrated development as articulated in the SPRITE project

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 407

(Jenkins 2000; Jenkins and Oliver 2001). The institutional role is conceptualized asrelating to the ways in which institutions support or inhibit tourism developmentthrough actions relating to policy and planning, business support, controlling quality,promotion and marketing. In fulfilling these functions institutions become involvedin relationships with each other, with producers and with external markets. It isproposed that concepts relating to embedding and disembedding and the networkingthat institutions undertake form a useful analytical framework. Embedding relates tothe extent to which tourism is integrated into the local environment, economy, societyand culture. It finds expression, for example, in features that confer distinctiveness,such as use of local raw materials, craftsmanship and local ownership of smallscalebusinesses. Such features have the potential to confer niche ‘quality’ status whichcan command market recognition and a price premium (Ilbery and Kneafsey 1998).Because of limited domestic demand, however, the development of local tourismbusinesses means that external markets must be sourced through ‘disembedding’(Cawley et al. 2002). External networking may be necessary also to influence policyand source funds.

The role of institutions in promoting appropriate forms of embedding and disem-bedding among rural tourism enterprises may be summarized as follows. Tourism isan economic sector of growing importance in most countries and is subject to officialpolicy and planning control (Shaw and Williams 2002). Influence over policy tends tobe greater in the case of largescale tourism businesses than among their smallerscalerural counterparts and, as a result, the interests of the latter may be underrepresentedin national policy which restricts the capacity of the sector to develop fully (Hall2000). This is particularly the case among rural enterprises in lagging regions, whichare often small, seasonal, geographically dispersed operations (Butler and Hall 1998).Institutions have a central role to play in incorporating the interests of these enter-prises more effectively within wider tourism and rural development initiatives (Selin1999). Similarly, if tourism is to be embedded in a meaningful way within the widerrural economy, local ownership and use of local resources must be supported. To-wards this end, finance, advice, technical expertise and training support need to bedelivered in ways that promote local enterprise and are conducive to empowerment.The quality of the natural environment and of the tourism products are recognizedas being key sources of market advantage for rural providers. Because ‘quality’ issocially constructed, it may be defined in various ways in different contexts, a fea-ture that can be exploited by local producers (Hinrichs 2000; Murdoch et al. 2000).But local producers are often very diverse in character, poorly informed and poorlyorganized; on their own, they may lack the capacity to develop local resources andto construct ‘quality’ (Marsat and Mamdy 2002). Public and private institutions haveroles to play in creating awareness of the importance of quality and supporting itsmaintenance in order to create closer links with the place of production and to createcompetitive advantage in external markets. Institutional support for promotion andmarketing is recognized as being necessary for the sustainability and growth of small

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

408 M. Cawley et al.

businesses that often lack the personnel and financial resources to undertake such ac-tivities independently (Lane 1994; Griffin, 1999). External markets must be reachedbut, equally, a critical mass of product needs to be created to attract and engage theattention of the tourist.

Recent research has highlighted the role of networks in rural development. Accord-ing to Murdoch (2000: 408) a network approach ‘can straddle diverse spaces and canhold the promise of a more complex appreciation of “development” than has tradition-ally been evident in state-centred versus market-led or endogenous versus exogenousmodels’. Courlet and Pecqueur (1991) similarly identified the growing importanceof concepts of partnership among stakeholders in thinking related to deconcentrationand regional development in France in the late 1980s. One of the important objectivesof networks involving local producers, communities and institutions is the captureof an ‘organizational rent’ for the locality by attracting consumers into the networksand by profiting from their willingness to pay for evocations that reflect territorialquality, links to a particular place and to specific histories (Pecqueur 2001). A networkapproach therefore may be viewed as constituting a type of ‘third way’ which enablesthe links between the public and the private, and between the local and the non-local,to be taken into account. The focus in this paper is on networking – the interaction thattakes place between institutions and among institutions, businesses, communities andother actors in the context of promoting IRT – rather than on the details of specificnetworks per se (e.g. relating to particular products or local areas). In consideringnetworking with reference to four dimensions of business development, the paperalso adopts a broader perspective than many previous studies that often focused on aparticular segment of the production chain.

Links may be established between different types of networking and embedding anddisembedding. Relationships between local horizontal networking and embedding,and nonlocal vertical networking and disembedding are recognized in the literaturerelating to agricultural change and local development more generally. The local andthe nonlocal domains were identified by Marsden et al. (1990), for example, as per-mitting a new conceptualization of agriculture in the late 1980s. Some farmers werebecoming integrated more closely at a local geographical scale with non-agriculturalsystems as one survival strategy, whereas others were being incorporated verticallyinto international systems. LeHeron et al. (2001) documented similar processes in thecontext of aspects of New Zealand agriculture and Kneafsey et al. (2001) illustratedthe role of local networking in effective local marketing among small food producersin the west of England. The need for both horizontal networking as a method of pro-moting embedded rural enterprise development and vertical networking as a methodof accessing markets has been discussed by Friedman (1990) and Martin (1999)in the context of empowering local producers against the increasing penetration andinfluence of global capital. Chang et al. (1996) and Buhalis and Cooper (1998) demon-strated the role of vertical networking in permitting international tourist markets tobe reached. The SPRITE project conceptualized horizontal networking as playing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 409

a potentially influential role in promoting integration into local society, economy,culture and natural environments (embedding), and vertical networking in reachingexternal markets (disembedding) (see Saxena et al. 2007 in this issue). There is someevidence that horizontal networking may be of more recent occurrence than verticalnetworking, arising from an increased emphasis on endogenous involvement in ru-ral development (Kneafsey 2001). Clearly issues of networks as ‘open’ or ‘closed’,and ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ are important in terms of people’s trust of the network and ofcolleagues, and in the value they place on being an active member of a network (Sax-ena et al. 2007). Following Pecqueur (2001), this endogenous involvement may beinfluential in adding value locally and creating a stronger sense of ownership andempowerment.

Before discussing the results of the empirical research for the study regions, theinstitutional contexts in which tourism is promoted in Ireland and France are summa-rized briefly.

The Institutional Context of Tourism Promotion in Ireland and France

Tourism is organized within territorial and governance structures that share similaritiesbut also marked differences in Ireland and France (Table 1). These structures haveevolved since the early 1990s in ways that have implications for the promotion ofIRT.

In the Republic of Ireland, the State Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism is re-sponsible for tourism policy, and promotion is conducted primarily by state agencies.Since 2003, the island of Ireland has been promoted overseas by Tourism Ireland, andthe Republic of Ireland has been promoted by Failte Ireland. Failte Ireland also admin-isters funding for large-scale tourism projects, is responsible for the quality regulationof accommodation (which, with the exception of self-catering, has been devolved un-der licence to private bodies) and, since 2003, provides training for the sector. Prior to2003, the Irish Tourist Board (Bord Failte) was responsible for tourism promotion andfunding and another agency, CERT, provided training. Tourism projects may benefitalso from some of the programmes of FAS, the state training and employment agency.Both CERT and FAS operate through regional structures. The Department of Com-munity, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which administers the LEADER programme,holds the remit for rural tourism. The State Departments of the Environment, andthe Marine and Natural Resources have responsibilities relating to the protection ofnatural resources and the development of tourism infrastructure. (These were definedas resource controllers for the SPRITE project.) The main accommodation and otherservice providers are represented by national private organizations.

In France, law number 1992-1341 of 23 December 1992, concerning the allocationof competencies in the area of tourism, gave to the State and the territorial collectivi-ties (the regions, departements and communes) responsibility for developing tourism.The State Secretariat for Tourism has competencies to define and implement national

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

410 M. Cawley et al.

Table 1. Tourism: territorial and institutional structures in Ireland and France

Ireland France

Nationala Department of Arts, Sport andTourism

Delegated Minister for Tourism andODIT (ex. AFIT- French Agencyfor Tourism Development)

Other pertinent departments Other pertinent departments/agenciesState tourism agencies Maison de la FranceTraining and employment agencies

(CERT, FAS)Representative trade groups Representative trade groupsLobby groups Lobby groups

Sub-nationalb Includes more than one tourismregion. State regional/ruraldevelopment agencies (Udarasna Gaeltachta, RegionalAssembly, WesternDevelopment Commission)

Massif Central – COMAC (Stateservice)

DATAR (Delegation for TerritorialManagement and Regional Action)

Networks of institutions (e.g. Unionof Chambers of Commerce,Association of Regional NaturalParks)

Regionalc Regional Tourism Authority Regional CouncilRegional Development Authority Regional Committee for Tourism

Regional Tourism Delegation (Stateservice)

Consular ChambersTerritorial networks (e.g.

ARPA-Regional Association of theAuvergne)

Departementald General CouncilDepartemental Committee for

TourismConsular Chambers

Locale County Tourism Committees Regional Natural Parks and Pays,principal Tourist Offices

County and City Councils Communities of Communes andTourist Offices

LEADER and other partnerships Communes and Tourist OfficesLocal representative groups Local representative groups

aSix institutions interviewed in SPRITE project in Ireland; three in France.bFour institutions interviewed in SPRITE project in Ireland; four in the Massif Central.cFour institutions interviewed in SPRITE project in Ireland; nine in France.dThree institutions interviewed in SPRITE project in France.eSix institutions interviewed in SPRITE project in Ireland; four in France.Note that the number of interviews does not correspond necessarily with the number of institutionaltypes at each level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 411

tourism policy and to promote France externally. Training for the tourism industry isnot the remit of a particular main agency as in Ireland. The coordination of tourismin France has been influenced by the new territorial entities created during the pasttwo decades; especially, the communities of communes (the conduct of the respon-sibilities of certain smaller communes at more pertinent scales) and the pays. Thepays involve several communities for the purpose of having common policies andstrategies relating to various aspects of development and land use. Concrete actionsremain the responsibility of the communes or communities of communes.

Tourism is part of the remit of other institutions at a subnational scale in Ireland:NUTS2 level Regional Assemblies monitor EU investment, a Western DevelopmentCommission has a coordination and funding role vis-a-vis rural tourism, and theGaeltacht Authority (Udaras na Gaeltachta which has a developmental remit for allGaelicspeaking areas in the state) has responsibility for tourism in its area. The IrishNUTS3 Regional Development Authorities lack the longevity and status of theirFrench counterparts, being primarily coordinating bodies with a consultative role vis-a-vis tourism. At a regional scale, outside the Gaeltacht, tourism activity is coordinatedand promoted by seven primarily membership-funded Regional Tourism Authorities.In France, there are organizations that combine groups of departements and regionsfor particular purposes, especially in the mountainous areas, e.g. DATAR in the MassifCentral. The territorial region in France has its own tourist policy and is supportedby a Regional Committee for Tourism. Some tourism functions are conducted inpartnership between the state and the region, notably monitoring through regionallaboratories and financial aid of various kinds. Notwithstanding the decentralizationenvisaged in law 1992-1341, the region has assumed the coordination of the economicpolicies of the other collectivities in its territory only since law number 2004-809 of 13August 2004 which relates to local liberties and responsibilities. At the departementallevel (for which there is no equivalent in Ireland), the executive General Council has itsown tourism policy and is supported by internal specialist services and a representativeDepartemental Tourism Committee.

The county is the smallest administrative unit in Ireland and no equivalent to theFrench commune exists. County Tourism Committees represent tourism businessesin each county and report to the regional tourism authorities. The County and CityCouncils regulate physical development and land use and liaise with tourism intereststhrough the County and City Development Boards. LEADER and other local areapartnerships are the main sources of funding for smallscale rural tourism infrastructureand promotional activities. The state, the EU and financial institutions are the mainsources of largescale investment. Since the early 1990s, a number of local membershipgroups have emerged to promote particular geographical areas and their tourismbusinesses.

At the more local level in France, the communes and communities of communesare responsible for a wide range of public functions, including Tourism Offices(which they partly fund). Specialized associations of tourism communes also exist

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

412 M. Cawley et al.

(e.g. mountain and green holiday communes). Regional natural parks and the morerecent pays have tourism functions also. Private businesses, depending on type andcommercial status, may be supported by membership trade unions and by the publicconsular chambers (e.g. the Chamber of Agriculture has competence in agritourism)but many businesses are not supported or represented. New private networks are beingcreated with varying scope, in addition to the well-known national Gıtes de Franceand Logis de France. The sources of investment finance are varied but come primarilyfrom the departements, the regions and the EU (LEADER programme or ObjectiveII rural development programme) and loans.

IRT Promotion in the West Region and the Auvergne: the Sampled Institutions

In the SPRITE project the institutions for IRT were classified as state, private orvoluntary associations involved in policy and planning, business support, regulation,promotion and marketing. Institutions were selected for interview in a purposefulway, based on background research and consultation, to represent all these functionseffectively at scales from the local to the international. The interviews were taperecorded in most instances, transcribed and analysed in detail with reference to theirthematic content (Feldman 1995).

Twenty institutions were selected for the West Region of Ireland and 23 for theAuvergne in France. In both countries the interviewed institutions covered all relevantspatial scales, functions and tourism business types. Some had an exclusive focus ontourism whereas, for others, tourism was part of a broader function; some were longestablished and others were established more recently. Although now merged, BordFailte (the Irish Tourist Board) and the tourism training agency (CERT) were separateentities when interviewing was conducted in late 2002 and early 2003, and they weresurveyed separately.

The Effectiveness of Institutional Networking

Policy and Planning

Tourism policy and planning were reported as residing primarily with national insti-tutions in the West Region, with inputs from the regional tourism authority, IrelandWest Tourism. However, the national Bord Failte representative reported reduced in-volvement at regional and local scales as a result of having been allocated increasedmarketing responsibilities. It appeared that newer rural development institutions wereassuming some of the roles foregone, e.g. the Western Development Commissionwhich networked extensively with LEADER partnerships and businesses. In the Au-vergne, horizontal networking had increased in the context of policy and planning fortourism, arising from the new territorial collectivities. In both countries coordinationof financial instruments remained part of vertical networking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 413

Inputs to regional and local tourism planning, and policy to a lesser extent, tookplace in both regions through subsidiary types of relationships between regionaltourism institutions and committees: in the Auvergne, between the region and thedepartement and their respective tourism committees; and in the West Region be-tween Ireland West Tourism and the county tourism committees. Consultation throughshort-term working groups to establish multi-annual plans and among permanent the-matic working groups (e.g. Groupe de Territoire) was more common in the Auvergne,but Ireland West Tourism and Mayo County Council liaised in the context of phys-ical planning. Voluntary meetings of similar institutions were more a feature of theAuvergne, e.g. the club of departemental committees of the Massif Central.

Whilst structures in the Auvergne seemed more conducive to enabling local inputsinto policy and planning than in the West Region, concerns were expressed in bothregions about the effectiveness of local networking. The representative of the Townand Country Homes Association in the West Region suggested that local producershave little influence over policy. In the Auvergne, coherence was weak between somepolicies of the Community of Communes of Haut-Livradois and those of the RegionalNatural Park of Livradois-Forez (hereafter referred to as the Regional Natural Park).It must be noted, however, that the latter conducted a major revision of its tourismstrategy in 2004 to address this issue.

Business Support and Development

The institutional business-support role in the SPRITE project was defined as relatingmore to support through advisory functions and training than financial support, whichwas investigated during the resource controller survey. Where institutions providedfinancial as well as other forms of support this is referred to.

The state and the EU were the main sources of investment funding for tourisminfrastructure in the West Region through Bord Failte and LEADER partnerships.The Western Development Commission and private financial institutions providedinvestment loans. In the Auvergne, direct funding was provided by the state, regionand departement, and by the EU (LEADER and Objective 2 rural development funds)and, to a lesser extent, by the communes.

Tourism advice in the West Region came primarily from Ireland West Tourismbut also from the Western Development Commission and local partnerships. Someconcern was expressed that largerscale tourism businesses seemed to receive moresupport from the regional tourism authority. The Consular Chambers provided adviceto individual local businesses in the Auvergne. There was, however, weak horizontalnetworking between the technical staff of the various chambers, especially betweenagriculture, commerce and industry. This was partly because of the particularity ofagriculture but also because hoteliers and restaurant owners often viewed agritourismas providing unfair competition. The Regional Natural Park has led several initiatives,each consisting of auditing the problems of the interested actors in specific filieres

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

414 M. Cawley et al.

(e.g. hotels, camping, museums) as a prelude to action, which may help to offset theseproblems. The action which followed led to the establishment of a network betweenthe voluntary actors and the Park.

Support for tourism training involved extensive local networking in both regions.CERT and FAS worked through local area partnerships in the West Region. At thenational level in France, the state is the pivotal actor in the production of knowledge,often in association with large tourism businesses or cooperatives. The French Agencyfor Tourism Development (known as ODIT since 2003) publishes technical guides. Anational centre Source (based at Clermont-Ferrand) produces technical publicationsand organizes an annual summer school. The Departemental Committee for Tourismand the Regional Natural Park provide technical advice for structural projects oftenthrough the communities of communes. An exemplary network functions betweenthe Park, the agents of the consular chambers and the agents of the collectivities withrespect to promoting new enterprises.

Whilst local horizontal networking relating to ‘soft’ business support appeared tobe strong in both regions, weaknesses were present that had implications for localembedding and empowerment. A Regional Assembly representative suggested thatlittle dispersal of investment or tourists had actually occurred in the West Region. Thecoordination of advice among the communities of communes was problematic in theAuvergne, as was insufficient use of public–private partnerships to promote publicprojects.

Regulation

The focus here is on how environmental and product quality standards are imple-mented. The Irish County Councils, through their physical planning functions, havea responsibility to protect the quality of the physical and built environment indepen-dently and in association with other pertinent state agencies. Mayo County Councilengaged in extensive local networking in this context but reported difficulties in en-forcing compliance. An Taisce, the Irish Heritage Trust, which lobbies actively forlandscape and heritage protection, said that Bord Failte was not fulfilling its environ-mental remit. The Board representative confirmed that this function had effectivelypassed to the regional tourism authorities which often lacked the required resources toconduct the task adequately and are also becoming more subject to local developmentpressures. In the Auvergne, the territorial collectivities have primary responsibilityfor planning and control functions and regulatory functions are conducted by otherinstitutions in other pertinent sectors, e.g. forestry. The regional natural parks have aresponsibility to work to protect the quality of the physical environment within theirareas. They have an animation role and follow a networking model with the Park’scharter being negotiated every ten years with the local collectivities.

Product regulation takes two main forms: state regulation of certain types of accom-modation graded by ‘stars’; and compliance with the agreed monitored standards of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 415

membership groups. Both longestablished and newer institutions are involved. Regu-lation of rural tourism accommodation premises in Ireland is conducted primarily bylicensed private agencies. Newer forms of quality promotion include, most notably,an ecolabel developed by the Western Development Tourism Programme in early2003. The Auvergne provided many examples of quality labelled tourism productsregulated by an association of service providers (Gıtes de France or Logis de France),by an institution (the mark ‘auberge de pays’ developed by the Regional Chamber ofCommerce and Industry) or by the region (‘qualite auvergne’). The Regional NaturalPark networked horizontally in attributing a specific mark and establishing a micro-chain of service providers with reference to a desired level of quality and the methodof attaining it.

In the West Region stricter control of the quality of the physical and built envi-ronment, through local networking, and the further development of regional labellingwere proposed. In the Auvergne, greater coordination was advocated to deal withthe profusion of broadly similar marks, their cost, the diversity of the real demandsof quality and the absence of a quality system among certain micro-producers andfilieres.

Promotion and Marketing

Promotion and marketing (vertical networking to achieve disembedding) is under-taken by institutions which operate at various geographical scales in both regions.Bord Failte led international promotion in Ireland and Ireland West Tourism was as-sociated with this. New local organizations had become more proactive in promotionand the Bord Failte representative advocated greater coordination of these activitiesto avoid detracting from the strong national image that exists in international markets.In France, La Maison de la France leads in national overseas promotion; the RegionalTourism Councils promote to national and overseas clients; the departemental com-mittees to regional and national clients; the lower levels aim at local clients. Manycombinations of actions are possible and there was evidence of increased coordinationof activities over time. One former network of tourism offices had become involved inthe creation of a specialist tourism organization (Livradois-Forez Tourisme), coveringthe territory of the Park. Its missions included promotion and sale of products andcentralized management of tourist information. The Livradois-Forez DepartementalCommittee of Tourism had also recently introduced a policy to organize all touristicinstitutions at a scale comparable to that of the Park.

Interinstitutional collaboration was becoming more common in the West Regionas a method of maximizing promotional efforts and expenditure. Horizontal net-working among producers in the Auvergne related mainly to joint marketing and agreater emphasis on sales over promotion. The Regional Natural Park had createdfour such networks and networking was being developed at the scale of the MassifCentral.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

416 M. Cawley et al.

The commercialization of rural tourism was in some ways weakly developed in theAuvergne. Small enterprises and tour operators were equally unwilling to engage witheach other (the latter because of the fragmented product and variable quality). Thesemipublic commercial institutions are long established at the level of the departementbut their activity has hitherto remained weak. The Auvergne receives few overseasvisitors, although its fame has increased recently thanks to the volcanic park, Vulca-nia; the Livradois-Forez area remains poorly known despite the efforts of the Park.Differences of opinion were present between the collectivities about the organizationof promotion, and the levels of human and financial resources available were belowaverage in the region. By contrast with the Auvergne, Bord Failte was recognized ashaving successfully established the image of the West Region in overseas markets,but local tourism groups said that they received fewer tourists than did particulartowns. In both regions, it appears that greater coordination of promotional activitiesis required, as is more effective representation of smallscale providers.

Conclusions

In proposing the concept of integrated tourism, the SPRITE project drew on conceptsrelating to culture economy as a method of valorizing the inherent natural and socio-cultural resources of lagging rural regions (Ray 1998; Saxena et al. 2007). It furtherrecognized the potential role of partnerships and networking in advancing processesof integration, drawing on Murdoch (2000). Institutions are of particular importancein the context of such networking. This paper investigated the role of networkingby tourism institutions during four key stages in the production chain, from policyformulation to marketing. A comparative approach was adopted between two regionsin Ireland and France which provided both contrasts and similarities in terms of theirinstitutional structures. Networking was classified into horizontal actions which areknown to promote local embedding and local business development, and verticalactions from the local to the non-local with external agencies and markets. Aroundtwenty public, private and community/voluntary institutions were surveyed in boththe West Region of Ireland and the Auvergne and these covered all the main scales ofoperation and designated functions. The institutions had varying levels of involvementwith tourism over a range of time periods. The results reveal both similarities anddifferences in the effectiveness of institutional networking in promoting IRT in the tworegions, which are linked in part to commonalities and differences in the respectivenational territorial and governance structures.

The institutional framework pertinent to tourism in both countries and regionswas characterized by considerable dynamism, involving a transfer of functions tosubnational levels and the emergence of new governance structures in the guise ofLEADER and other local area partnerships. These structures facilitated local network-ing in the context of ‘soft’ supports, smallscale funding for business development,aspects of quality promotion (including regulation of common pooled resources) and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 417

local organization for promotional purposes. Notwithstanding the growth in regionaland local institutions and some devolution of decision making to subnational lev-els, strategic decision making remains centralized within national state institutionsin Ireland and, to some extent, in France. National institutions retain control of deci-sions relating to tourism policy (although to a lesser extent in France than in Ireland),funding of largescale tourism infrastructure, and some aspects of quality regulationand overseas promotion. Consultation is primarily with largescale businesses andtheir representatives and the needs of smallerscale providers are not represented ad-equately in either country. Individuals may be members of boards of directors butthere was an overall sense of limited power to influence key decision making amonglocal institutions. Because of the strategic nature of the decisions involved, verticalnetworking will continue to be required, but methods of facilitating greater localparticipation in centralized decision making are also clearly needed. In both regionsproblems were identified around a lack of coordination among a growing multiplicityof local actions as a method of expressing vested interests. These will continue toweaken the potential to achieve effective integration of rural tourism in local environ-ment, economy, society and culture. A desire exists for partnership between publicand private institutions and between geographical scales, but achieving this synergyin effective ways poses problems.

As well as sharing common concerns relating to the potential to integrate ruraltourism providers into national tourism decision making, contrasts were apparentbetween the West Region and the Auvergne which have broader implications relatingto the role of networking in promoting IRT. The French tradition of regional and localdemocracy with associated territorial and governance structures is more conducive tolocal networking in France than in Ireland. In particular, the Livradois-Forez RegionalNatural Park provides a new territorial model of coordination at a local scale that offersconsiderable potential for promoting IRT, in most of its many dimensions, and thismight be applied more widely. The devolution of responsibility for the regulationof accommodation under licence to private agencies in Ireland provides a successfulexample of public–private partnerships in operation. Another successful example isfurnished by the organization of training for the tourism and catering sector in Irelandwhere a single state agency collaborates with other state agencies, local partnershipsand communities.

The comparative experiences of the West Region and the Auvergne show that bothhorizontal and vertical networking have roles to play in facilitating the promotionof IRT. The horizontal networking structures which are conducive to the integrationof tourism locally are better developed in the Auvergne than in the West Region intourism. The latter region has been more successful in vertical networking to reachexternal markets through the success of a strong national promotional agency – ageneral governance feature of the Irish state. These contrasts arise in large part fromthe differing territorial and governance frameworks that already exist in the twocountries and the differing policy contexts within which rural tourism is organized.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

418 M. Cawley et al.

In both, however, small-scale local providers, who are central to rural tourism, havelittle influence over national policy, the operationalization of which therefore tendsto be regressive. The ‘soft’ or social dimension of people engaging in networkinghas been highlighted and needs more research in terms of their empowerment. Theevidence shows that the effectiveness of horizontal networking may be constrained ifthe necessary vertical networking is not facilitated and, equally, that some providersmay be marginalized from the benefits of vertical networking if appropriate horizontalstructures are not in place. The challenge for policy makers resides in promotinggreater integration between both forms of networking and so achieving this two-dimensional embeddedness (Saxena et al. 2007).

The experience of the Auvergne and the West Region has implications for IRTbeyond the immediate contexts. It highlights the effects of existing institutional struc-tures and policies in influencing the types of networking that take place and theirsuccess. This feature poses potential challenges in transferring ‘good practice’ fromone context to another which need to be recognized. Certain common lessons emergefor policy makers:

� more attention should be given to facilitating coordination and partnership ar-rangements at the regional, subregional and local scales to create new productsand infrastructure, avoid erosive competition and manage necessary and positivecompetition;

� local actors need to be linked more effectively into national networks.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the research assistance of Roisın Kelly in the West Regionand of Mme Marie-Anne Lenain in the Auvergne region.

References

Buhalis, D. & Cooper, C. (1998) Strategic use of information technologies in the tourism industry, TourismManagement, 19(5), pp. 409–421.

Butler, R. & Hall, C. M. (1998) Conclusion: the sustainability of tourism and recreation in rural areas,in: R. Butler, C. M. Hall & J. Jenkins (Eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, pp. 249–258(Chichester: Wiley).

Cawley, M., Gaffey, S. & Gillmor, D. A. (2002) Localization and global reach in rural tourism: Irishevidence, Tourist Studies, 2(1), pp. 63–86.

Chang, T. C., Milne, S., Fallon, D. & Pohlmann, C. (1996) Urban heritage tourism: the local-global nexus,Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), pp. 282–305.

Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1996) Promoting and Protecting Local Products: ATrumpcard for the Regions, Committee of the Regions (Sept.) (Brussels: CEC).

Courlet, C. & Pecqueur, B. (1991) Local industrial systems and externalities: an essay in typology, En-trepreneurship and Regional Development, 3(4), pp. 305–315.

Feldman, M. (1995) Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data (London: Sage).Friedman, J. (1990) Being in the world: globalisation and localisation, in M. Featherstone (Ed.) Global

Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, pp. 311–328 (London: Sage).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Promoting Integrated Rural Tourism: France and Ireland 419

Griffin, K. A. (1999) The inter-organisational relationships in Irish tourism: the case of Lough Derg, IrishGeography, 32(1), pp. 58–72.

Hall, C. M. (2000) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships (Harlow: Pearson EducationalLtd).

Hinrichs, C. C. (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agriculturalmarkets, Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), pp. 295–303.

Ilbery, B. & Kneafsey, M. (1998) Product and place: promoting quality products and services in the laggingrural regions of the European Union, European Urban and Regional Studies, 5(4), pp. 329–341.

Jenkins, T. N. (2000) Putting postmodernity into practice: endogenous development and the role of tra-ditional cultures in the rural development of marginal regions, Ecological Economics, 34(3), pp.301–14.

Jenkins, T. N. & Oliver, T. (2001) Integrated Tourism: A Conceptual Framework, Deliverable 1, SPRITEProject (Aberystwyth: Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales).

Kneafsey, M. (2001) Rural cultural economy: tourism and social relations, Annals of Tourism Research,28(3), pp. 762–783.

Kneafsey, M., Ilbery, B. & Jenkins, T. (2001) Exploring dimensions of culture economies in rural WestWales, Sociologia Ruralis, 41(3), pp. 296–310.

Lane, B. (1994) Sustainable rural tourism strategies: a tool for development and conservation, Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 2(1&2), pp. 7–21.

LeHeron, R., Penny, G., Paine, M., Sheath, G., Pedersen, J. & Botha, N. (2001) Global supply chains andnetworking: a critical perspective on learning challenges in the New Zealand dairy and sheepmeatcommodity chains, Journal of Economic Geography, 1(4), pp. 439–456.

Marsat, J.-B. & Mamdy, J.-F. (2002) La regulation des amenites dans des situations de valorisation pardes produits ou services lies – le cas du tourisme rural, Ingenieries E.A.T. numero Special AmenitesRurales : Une Nouvelle Lecture des Enjeux Territoriaux, pp. 143–156.

Marsden, T., Lowe, P. & Whatmore, S. (1990) Introduction: questions of rurality, in: T. Marsden, P. Lowe &S. Whatmore (Eds) Rural Restructuring: Global Processes and Their Responses, pp. 1–19 (London:Fulton).

Martin, R. (1999) Stateless monies, global financial integration and national economic autonomy: theend of geography, in: J. Bryson, N. Henry, D. Keeble & R. Martin (Eds) The Economic GeographyReader, pp. 64–70 (Chichester: Wiley).

Murdoch, J. (2000) Networks: a new paradigm of rural development, Journal of Rural Studies, 16(4),pp. 407–419.

Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. & Banks, J. (2000) Quality, nature and embeddedness: some theoretical consid-erations in the context of the food sector, Economic Geography, 76(2), pp. 107–25.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1995) Niche Markets as a RuralDevelopment Strategy (Paris: OECD).

Pecqueur, B. (2001) Qualite et developpement territorial: l’hypothese du panier de biens et de servicesterritorialises, Economie Rurale, 26(1), pp. 37–49.

Ray, C. (1998) Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development, Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1),pp. 3–20.

Ray, C. (1999) Endogenous development in the era of reflexive modernity, Journal of Rural Studies, 15(3),pp. 257–267.

Saxena, G., Clark, G., Oliver, T. & Ilbery, B. (2007) Conceptualizing Integrated Rural Tourism, TourismGeographies, 9(4), pp. 347–370.

Selin, S. (1999) Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,7(3&4), pp. 260–273.

Shaw, G. & Williams, A. (2002) Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (Oxford:Blackwell).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

420 M. Cawley et al.

Notes on Contributors

Mary Cawley is Senior Lecturer in Geography at the National University of Ireland,Galway. Her research interests relate to the geography of rural social and economicchange; notably population, rural development and tourism issues.Jean-Bernard Marsat is a researcher at the Dynamics and Functions of Rural AreasResearch Unit of Cemagref. He was a member of the French team in the SPRITEproject.Desmond A. Gillmor is Emeritus Associate Professor and Fellow of Trinity College,University of Dublin. His research interests and publications relate principally toresource industries, tourism, rural development and countryside management.

Resume: La Promotion du Tourisme Rural Integre: Prospection Comparativesur l’Organisation des Reseaux Institutionnels en France et en Irlande

Cet article examine le role des reseaux horizontaux et verticaux dans la promotion du tourisme ruralintegre (IRT dans le texte) au moyen d’une etude comparative de la region occidentale de l’Irlande etde l’Auvergne en France. De nouveaux partenariats regionaux et locaux et des structures sociales ontete etablis dans les deux pays au cours des dernieres decennies, mais le controle des decisions pour ledeveloppement du tourisme demeure plus ou moins centralise. Cela se traduit par des sentiments derepresentation minime parmi les petits producteurs de ce modele de tourisme integre etudie dans lecadre du programme SPRITE. On a releve des differences entre les deux regions au niveau regionalet local du pouvoir executif en France, ce qui facilite les relations de reseau horizontales, alors qu’enIrlande, les relations verticales pour la promotion et la vente ont plus de succes. Il y a des lecons atirer des deux cas pour une promotion plus efficace du IRT.

Mots-cles: Reseaux, partenariats, France, Irlande, tourisme rural integre

Zusammenfassung: Forderung des Integrierten Landlichen Tourismus: Vergle-ichende Perspektiven institutionellen Networkings in Frankreich und Irland

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Rollen des horizontalen und vertikalen Networkings zur Forderung desIntegrierten Landlichen Tourismus (Integrated Rural Tourism = IRT) durch eine Vergleichsstudieder irischen West Region und der Auvergne in Frankreich. Neue regionale und lokale Partner-schaften und territoriale Strukturen sind in beiden Landern in den letzten Jahrzehnten entstanden,aber die Kontrolle der Tourismusrichtlinien blieb dabei in einem großeren oder kleineren Umfangzentralisiert, so dass kleinere Interessenten, die im Zentrum des von SPRITE untersuchten inte-grierten Tourismusmodells stehen, sich nur begrenzt vertreten fuhlten. Unterschiede zwischen denRegionen schließen großere Exekutivrechte auf regionaler und lokaler Ebene in Frankreich ein, waseinem umfangreicheren horizontalen Networking forderlich ist, und ein erfolgreicheres vertikalenNetworking und Marketing in Irland ein. Lektionen konnen von beiden fur die wirkungsvollereForderung des IRT erlernt werden.

Stichworter: Networking, Partnerschaften, Frankreich, Irland, Integrierter Landlicher Tourismus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

27 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014