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

Abstract

This paper investigates the roles of horizontal and vertical networking in promoting 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 territorial structures have been established in both countries during recent decades but control of tourism policy remains centralized to a greater or lesser extent, resulting in feelings of limited representation among smallerscale producers who are at the centre of the integrated tourism model studied in SPRITE (Supporting and Promoting Integrated Tourism in Europe's Lagging Rural Regions). Differences between the regions include greater executive power at regional and local scales in France, which is conducive to more extensive horizontal networking, and more successful vertical networking for promotion and marketing in Ireland. Lessons may be learned from both for the more effective promotion of IRT.

Implementing integrated rural tourism: An event-based approach

“…Thus, numerous studies have investigated integrated approaches to tourism in rural areas (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004;Caalders, 1997;Cai, 2002;Cawley, Marsat, & Gillmor, 2007;Ilbery, Saxena, & Kneafsey, 2007;Mitchell & Eagles, 2001;Petrou, Pantziou, Dimara, & Skuras, 2007;Saxena & Ilbery, 2008;Tinsley & Lynch, 2001). However, the event-based approach has not been at the centre of attention so far.…”

The importance of local area as a motivation for cooperation among rural tourism entrepreneurs

“…An important consideration is also the nature of the relationships within a community or local place and the fact that these linkages can be 'soft' or 'hard' ( Saxena et al, 2007) , formal or informal ( Petrou et al, 2007) (), weak or strong (Granovetter, 1973) and often rely on the social norms and personal connections of individuals (Saxena, 2007) and as Petrou et al (2007, p.436) state 'whether to network is as much as social as an economic decision. The important role institutions can have in these networks is also observed by Cawley et al (2007) and Conway and Cawley (2012). , Kylanen and Mariani (2012) highlight the importance of coopetition, the simultaneous cooperation and competition in tourism businesses and discuss examples where 'businesses tend to cooperate in the medium-long term in order to achieve a successful long-term destination branding strategy while they compete on a shorter term for the hearts, minds and wallets of the customers ' (p.62).…”

“…What is clear is that collaboration in tourism destinations is fundamental (Gursoy et al, 2014) and while the drivers or triggers for such cooperation may be varied (see Gorman andMottiar, 2014 andEstevez 2014 for example) the positive outcomes are what encourages the development of such relationships. As a result of this sometimes this cooperation is encouraged and supported by local government and institutions (Cawley et al 2007) and tour operators and destination marketing organizations can also play important roles (Ilvery et al, 2007). An important part of this discussion is that in the integrated rural tourism concept 'networks are place specific' (Barcus, 2913, p.131).…”

Rural Tourism Development through Cross-border Cooperation. The Case of Romanian-Hungarian Cross-border Area

“…new businesses, revenues, employment), and intangible results, such as place-image and community identity (Kostopoulou et al 2015), motivating people and local and regional authorities to assign a greater importance to rural tourism. In addition, "experiential tourism" is a type or a type of tourism that allows the integration of tourists into daily, traditional activities (Cawley et al 2007), (Petrou et al 2007). Meanwhile, rural tourism requires complementarity between the economic sectors (with focus on local ownership and resources use), but also cooperation between the entities involved.…”