Transboundary Collaboration in Tourism: the Case of the Bothnian Arc

Abstract

Tourism's relationship to political boundaries has caught the attention of researchers only recently, even though on a more general level the academic study of borders attracts considerable interest. A topic that has been explored only superficially concerns the obstacles inhibiting tourism's development in a cross-border setting and, particularly, the tensions arising when the respective national interests of the two neighbouring countries do not coincide with the mutual benefits to be derived through close transfrontier collaboration at the regional level. An emerging key question is what forces dominate within the region straddling the border between two countries -those dictated by the respective national interests of each country, or those benefiting the transboundary region itself? These issues are explored through an examination of the Bothnian Arc Project, a cross-border collaborative effort between Sweden and Finland. A detailed investigation of the planning process that has been put into effect for developing and marketing this coastal region's tourist product is provided. Among the issues discussed are the attempts on the part of all stakeholders to establish a unifying identity for the region, which will set it aside from other destinations in northern Scandinavia (e.g. Lapland). The focus is on some of the most important challenges lying ahead in terms of developing and marketing this cross-border region as a single destination. Additionally, the investigation shows that even if the border in this region has effectively disappeared, obstacles remain to achieving mutual regional benefits.

Implementation of Sustainable Tourism in the German Alps: A Case Study

“…Cross-border cooperation is very important in order to enable the development of the tourist destinations based on consumption patterns [41], as well as mutual cooperation and partnerships [39], rather than on administrative borders [42]. This need especially becomes obvious in a situation when interests at the national level of the two neighbouring countries do not coincide with the need for cross-border collaboration at the regional level [43]. However, on the EU level, it has been recognized that sustainability depends on the cooperation of the neighbouring countries, which is why cross-border cooperation has been used as an important tool to promote and advance sustainability principles across the EU [44].…”

Editorial: Tourism issues and international borders in the Nordic Region

“…Oft-cited examples are the twin towns of Tornio, Finland, and Haparanda, Sweden, working together across their common boundary for education, firefighting services, health care and tourism promotion (Ioannides, Nielsen, & Billing, 2006;Joenniemi & Sergunin, 2011;Lundén & Zalamans, 2001;Prokkola, 2008). Another example of binational collaboration is found on the Norway-Russia border in the vicinity of Kirkenes.…”

Investment Evaluation of Tourism Industry: A Case Study of Coastal Recreation Areas in Hualien Taiwan

“…After the concept of ecological tourism had been proposed, it attracted the attention of many experts and scholars. However, the definition and the meaning of ecotourism are still unclear, including participation, conservation, and interests (LaPage, 1963;Burch, 1984;Coccossis & Mexa, 2004;Bimonte & Punzo, 2005;Loannides et al, 2006;Manning, 2010).…”

“…Indeed, tourism development has several impacts on the ecological environment: it damages wildlife habitats; introduces exotic dominant species leading to changes in the local flora (Godschalk & Parker, 1975;Odum, 1989;Abernethy, 2001;Oh et al, 2002); damages soil and plants, leading to the gradual disappearance of greenbelts; affects visual landscapes (Odum, 1989;Hof & Lime, 1997;Loannides et al, 2006); leads to the influx of a large number of tourists, creating problems in transportation, food and accommodation, air, water, noise, and garbage processing of tourist attractions; interferes with ecological environment; and creates a burden for conservation (Mathieson & Wall, 1982;May, 1991;Casagrandi & Rinaldi, 2002;Gossling & Hall, 2005;Saarinen, 2006). In terms of economic impacts, the economic benefits of most of the tourist attractions are obtained not by local residents, but by financial groups or immigrants from other places (Khan, 1998;Manning, 2002).…”

“…In addition, a lack of professional tour guides and planning personnel leads to the failure to implement the actual ecotourism (Loannides et al, 2006), and the intervention of financial groups interferes with the consensus of local residents and affects the direction of the development of ecotourism (May, 1991;Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996;Zacarias et al, 2011;Vinals et al, 2014;Zhang et al, 2015;Wu and Chen, 2016). In terms of the impacts on policy, the lack of a concept of "tourist carrying capacity" may easily cause the consumption of and damage to tourist attractions (May, 1991;Tourism Bureau, 2002;Zhang et al, 2015;Guerra & Dawson, 2016) while the lack of any monitoring mechanism of Ecotourism attractions leads to the failure to accurately evaluate the overall influence of the ecotourism development on tourist attractions (May, 1991;Tourism Bureau, 2002;Vinals et al, 2014;Zhang et al, 2015;Wu & Chen, 2016).…”