development of collaboration as well as competition within the destination, but also worked to develop a broader industry base than one just focusing on tourism with a num- ber of complementary industries. This has enabled skilled people to move to the destina- tion and settle down on a long-term basis even if not all working family members are within the field of tourism. In turn, this has lead to a growing population, increasing job opportunities, high levels of investments, in for instance, housing and infrastructure and ultimately rising tax incomes in the community — all goals of the 2011 Vision.
The public–private strategy group also works hard to attract investors and get access to risk capital for new investments and innovative ideas. It is clear that the major company Skistar takes on an import role of a cluster animator and driver of innovation during the winter, but that a number of major establishments would never have taken place without the support of other industries and the public sector, emphasising the significance of public–private partnerships.
It is apparent that traditional government is declining in importance in the context of clus- ter-based economic developments. Instead, new forms of integrative governance are required.
This means that new roles for the private and public sector are emerging. Private sector par- ticipants need to acknowledge the importance of being part of a competitive cluster of firms and get involved in the work. Public sector participants need to learn how to participate in the game rather than rule it. The governance perspective can contribute to our understanding of the preconditions for successful government involvement in cluster-building processes.
1990s entered the debate on local and regional development with the general awareness that innovation is a crucial component in the renewal of economies, and that innovation is a process that may be supported with certain measures. The original debate on innovation systems is, however, usually occupied with national and more lately with regional innova- tion systems. Local innovation systems in terms of destinations as places have so far rarely entered the discussion.
The components, or actors, in an innovation system (Lundvall, 1992; Freeman, 1995;
Spilling, 2002) may consist of individual firms, public authorities and institutions within education, research and development. The innovation system is by definition a multi-actor structure. The Triple Helix model of innovation points at the three components above, while the OECD model highlights the important centre point of knowledge dissemination. The distinctive element of the innovation system is the infrastructure of innovations, including research and research-funding institutions and universities (Östhol & Lembke, 2003).
Critical to the functioning of a system are relations, ability to create actions and inter- action supporting a collective performance beneficiary to the actors, and the critical mass in terms of a system being sufficiently complete to create manifold synergies and comple- mentarities. In the end, performance of an innovation system should be related to “effec- tiveness in producing, diffusing and exploiting economically useful knowledge”
(Lundvall, 1992).
If we look closer at the key components of the system, their roles may be described as follows:
● Commercial enterprises constitute the great motivators and drivers for innovative actions in every aspect of the totality of the destination as well as within the enterprise itself. This statement is assumed to be valid for firms within tourism destinations as for other industries. Increased competitiveness through innovative actions is at the heart of every commercial entity. Competitiveness of the destination is ultimately measured through profitability of the commercial enterprises. Prosperity and wealth is governed by productivity and value created in the enterprises (Flagestad, 2002; Hjalager, 1994, 1998, 2002; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993).
● The political system is responsible for creating opportunities and laying down limita- tions for actions within enterprises. Attitudes and actions of public authorities have great impact on the innovative climate in a destination, by for instance, facilitating an inter- active learning process, influencing type of destination leadership and organisation, institutional structures, creation of a vision for the destination, etc. (Bieger, 1998;
Flagestad, 2002; Hjalager, 1994, 1998, 2002; Lundvall, 1992). This point at the impor- tance of governance processes also in innovation systems.
● Knowledge institutions: A key success factor for innovation is the ability to build knowl- edge and develop learning processes. Creation of institutionalised learning processes and feedback systems for knowledge accumulation is crucial. Most likely destination- specific learning systems should be developed and the ability to release a collective innovative capacity and tacit knowledge should be emphasised (Bellandi, 1994;
Hjalager, 1994, 1998, 2002; Lundvall, 1992; Lundvall & Johnson, 1994.)
According to this categorisation, the roles of different actors are relatively clear-cut and the necessary resource-dependencies between them are obvious. Do tourism enterprises 90 Bo Svensson et al.
see research-based knowledge as important for their innovative capacity? Do research bodies produce knowledge that is perceived as relevant to the tourism industry? And to what extent do government bodies support these linkages? These are relevant questions that deserve attention in future tourism research (see Figure 6.2).
In the ski resort of Åre, as being our case for empirical reflections, the careful observer might sense something reminiscent of an embryonic innovation system emerging. Some of the private enterprises in the destination certainly recognise knowledge as central to fur- ther development of the destination. The most recent, and perhaps clearest, example of this is related to the already mentioned effort to develop the ski resort into an all-year-round destination. Prior to formulating the strategy, Åre gathered research-based knowledge through a project that looked into North American and Alp resorts that seemed to have managed this transformation. Research findings were thereafter discussed in workshops involving key actors in the destination and researchers, followed by a study trip to one of the studied destinations. The research effort was jointly financed by private and public sources, and local and regional government bodies obviously saw their role in supporting further interaction between the tourism industry and their knowledge support bodies.
In general, however, the innovation system requirements for the above components might be hard to meet when interpreting the typical innovation system definitions given in the literature. The population of enterprises, dominated by small and medium-sized Destination Governance and Contemporary Development Models 91
Demand Consumers (final demand) Producers (intermediate demand)
Framework Conditions Financial environment; taxation and Incentives; propensity to innovation And entrepreneurship; mobility
Large companies
Mature SMEs
New, technology- based firms
Professional education and
training
Higher education and research
Public sector research
Government
Governance
RTD policies
Banking,
venture capital IPR and
information Innovation and
business support Standards and norms Research
institutes;
Brokers Industrial
System
Education and Research
Political System
Infrastructure Intermediaries
Figure 6.2: Innovation system model (Kuhlman & Arnold, 2001).
enterprises (SMEs), is often limited both in numbers and size, which means that the crit- ical mass might be weak. In addition, knowledge is not always perceived as a key driving force within the tourism industry, rather it is often described as a low competence busi- ness in terms of staff education level. The capability of tourism enterprises as motivators and drivers of innovation therefore needs to be considered with great caution — it cannot simply be taken for granted. If these doubts about tourism enterprises are motivated they may indicate a more significant role for local and regional public authoritiesin innovation processes. Their role in facilitating the early phases of the innovation process may need to be more active and driving than in more mature business environments.
In addition, the importance of the public sector actors in innovation might also be underlined by the situation concerning knowledge institutions. Also these might be rela- tively weak in relation to the tourist destination. Universities and research institutes might be only at a distance and not naturally part of the local destination environment, which calls for government support in the creation of formal and informal institutional frame- works or arenas for knowledge management as the most critical element for the function- ing of a destination innovation system. Governance in this context is perhaps more intricate in comparison with other industries and both government bodies and research bodies face great challenges in a system where the private actors might be less concerned with knowledge as a production factor.
The innovation systems’ dependency on the interaction between private enterprises, knowledge institutions and government bodies again motivates the governance perspec- tive. This is underlined by the presumed central role of government in facilitating the emergence of an innovation system. Understanding the dynamics and the role of various actors in the innovation system may help destinations in developing innovative processes, even if they cannot be regarded as fully fledged innovation systems.